transcript of proceedings - us department of … · transcript of proceedings ... 10 doe intends to...

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

HERITAGE REPORTING CORPORATION

Official Reporters

1220 L Street, N.W., Suite 206

Washington, D.C. 20005-4018

(202) 628-4888

[email protected]

In the Matter of: ) ) APPLIANCE STANDARDS AND ) RULEMAKING FEDERAL ADVISORY ) COMMITTEE (ASRAC) ) ) FULL PARENT COMMITTEE ) MEETING & WEBINAR ) ) Pages: 1 through 191 Place: Washington, D.C. Date: January 10, 2018

1

Heritage Reporting Corporation (202) 628-4888

BEFORE THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY OFFICE OF ENERGY EFFICIENCY & RENEWABLE ENERGY

In the Matter of: ) ) APPLIANCE STANDARDS AND ) RULEMAKING FEDERAL ADVISORY ) COMMITTEE (ASRAC) ) ) FULL PARENT COMMITTEE ) MEETING & WEBINAR )

Room 8E-089 Forrestal Building 1000 Independence Avenue, S.W. Washington, D.C.

Wednesday, January 10, 2018

The parties met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m.

PARTICIPANTS:

JOHN CYMBALSKY, Facilitator Designated Federal Officer U.S. Department of Energy

Committee Members :

ANDREW deLASKI, Chair Appliance Standards Awareness Project

ASHLEY ARMSTRONG U.S. Department of Energy

JENNIFER CLEARY Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers

KRISTEN DRISKELL California Energy Commission

DAVE GATTO Westinghouse Lighting

CHARLES HON True Manufacturing

NOAH HOROWITZ Natural Resources Defense Council

2


PARTICIPANTS: (Cont'd.)

Committee Members : (Cont'd.)

DIANE JAKOBS Rheem Manufacturing Company

SOFIE MILLER The George Washington University Regulatory Studies Center

MICHELLE SIM SoCalGas Company

DAVE WINNINGHAM Lennox International

MICHAEL WOLF Greenheck Fan Corporation

Other Participants :

TIM BALLO Earthjustice

KARA BEIGAY Manufactured Housing Institute

SASHA BENJAMIN Oak Ridge Utility District

GEORGE BRUMEISTER Colorado Energy Group

KITT BUTLER Advanced Energy

TOM CATANIA Erb Institute

DAN COHEN Office of General Counsel U.S. Department of Energy

CAROLINE DAVIDSON-HOOD Air-Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration Institute

PAUL DOPPEL Mitsubishi

3


PARTICIPANTS: (Cont'd.)

Other Participants : (Cont'd.)

TOM ECKMAN Northwest Power Planning Council

LESLI GOOCH Manufactured Housing Institute

JILL HOOTMAN TRANE

RACHEL KESTENBAUM Office of General Counsel U.S. Department of Energy

BIJIT KUNDU Energy Solutions

CHARLES McCRUDDEN Daiken

STEVE ROSENSTOCK Edison Electric Institute

DANIEL SIMMONS Deputy Secretary Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy U.S. Department of Energy

ERIC TROSKOSKI Bradford White Corporation

KEVIN WASHINGTON Illinois Tool Works

MICHAEL WEEMS American Lighting Association

JUSTIN WHITE New Watt Consulting

ALLISON WILLIAMS Lawrence Berkeley National Labs

4


P R O C E E D I N G S 1

(10:05 a.m.) 2

MR. CYMBALSKY: Okay. So welcome, everyone, 3

to our first Appliance Standards and Rulemaking 4

Advisory Committee of the New Year. Welcome to all 5

our members, and a new member, which we will go and 6

introduce each other later. But before -- we're very 7

lucky to get a few minutes of Daniel Simmons' time 8

here. He is the Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary 9

for Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy here at DOE. 10

Daniel's been here since the beginning of 11

the administration on the transition team, the 12

Beachhead team, Acting Assistant Secretary, so he's 13

almost a full year here with this administration. 14

I could say that this program is near and 15

dear to his heart. He's also the regulatory reform 16

officer here at DOE, so he's heading up that effort as 17

well. So, without further ado, it is my pleasure to 18

introduce Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary Daniel 19

Simmons. 20

(Applause.) 21

MR. SIMMONS: Thank you, John. The -- so 22

when I -- as John mentioned, when I came in with the 23

transition team, you know, those of us that came to 24

the agency after the election, before inauguration 25

5


to, you know, to understand what the administration 1

was doing and to facilitate the new administration, to 2

facilitate the transition to a new administration, one 3

of the things that we did is was we got PowerPoints 4

from all of the -- you know, we had these discussions 5

with, you know, all of the different offices in DOE. 6

That obviously included a discussion about what's 7

going on in EERE. So it was a -- I'd say it was about 8

a 20-, 25-page PowerPoint that we went through, and in 9

that PowerPoint, my recollection is that there was 10

only one bullet about the appliance and equipment 11

standards. There could have been like a couple more. 12

So maybe there were like three bullets in like a 20-, 13

25-page PowerPoint that was this program, which really 14

kind of shocked me at the time. 15

Let me assure you that the amount of time 16

that I spend on this is way more than, you know, even 17

just 5 percent of my time. As John said, it is near 18

and dear to my heart, something that I -- regulations 19

generally is an issue that I care about, and I 20

particularly care about appliance and equipment 21

standards. 22

So thank you to ASRAC for the work that 23

you've done over the years. Thank you for that, as 24

well as my apologies that we have been -- one area 25

6


where we have been slow is on reconstituting or 1

holding hearing -- or holding meetings such as this 2

with ASRAC but also the other FACA committees in DOE. 3

But we have -- so my apologies for that. 4

Obviously, as you know, regulatory reform is 5

an important priority for this administration, and at 6

DOE, we are committed to reducing regulatory burdens, 7

to promote economic growth and energy security for the 8

American people. Also, as I have said multiple times, 9

DOE intends to meet its legal obligations. This is 10

obviously important because of ongoing lawsuits as 11

well as legal issues surrounding the Appliance 12

Standards Program. It's one of the things that I get 13

asked about when I testify, and it came up in 14

yesterday's hearing at the House Energy and Commerce 15

meeting. 16

The deputy secretary as well as 17

undersecretaries were there. And I will read you what 18

Undersecretary Menezes said when asked about appliance 19

standards. He said that -- Menezes said there's been 20

discussion with general counsel on the issue of 21

appliance standards, and he offered a full-throated 22

support, to quote, that DOE would meet its statutory 23

deadlines on efficiency. "The Department is committed 24

to following the law, to having these standards in 25

7


place according to the deadlines that are set in 1

statute," Menezes said. 2

When Representative Peter Walsh asked if it 3

meant that DOE would not stall or slow-walk efficiency 4

rules, Menezes said, "You have my assurance on that." 5

So I just wanted to share that with you, that it is 6

our intention to meet our legal obligations. 7

So, in terms of regulatory reform, earlier 8

this year the President issued several executive 9

orders that have guided our regulatory reform efforts. 10

On January 30, the President issued Executive Order 11

13771 reducing regulatory -- reducing regulation and 12

controlling regulatory costs. That order requires 13

that unless prohibited by law -- and that is obviously 14

important, very important -- whenever an agency 15

promulgates a new regulation, the agency must identify 16

at least two existing regulations to be repealed. 17

The order also requires that for fiscal year 18

2018 and thereafter there are specific regulatory 19

budgets. Additionally, on April 24, the President 20

issued Executive Order 13777 enforcing the regulatory 21

reform agenda. That order required the head of each 22

agency to designate an agency official as its 23

regulatory reform officer and that each agency 24

establish a regulatory reform task force. In DOE, the 25

8


regulatory reform officer is the chief of staff, and 1

he has delegated those responsibilities to me. 2

Following these directions, DOE formed a 3

regulatory reform task force, and in my role as the 4

regulatory reform officer, at least acting officer, 5

I've overseen a number of steps to address regulatory 6

burdens at DOE with respect to the Appliance Standards 7

Program. This has included items such as the 8

December 18 request for information and yesterday's 9

meeting on the process rule, to make sure that we are 10

reviewing the process that we use to promulgate 11

regulations. 12

As you know, DOE is evaluating processes 13

related to appliance and equipment standards. And we 14

heard many constructive comments yesterday. I had 15

planned on going yesterday, but I do not always 16

control my schedule, and that was one example of me 17

not being able to do what I really wanted to do. Such 18

is life. 19

DOE is currently thinking about whether to 20

address negotiated rulemakings in the process rule. 21

DOE generally supports negotiated rulemakings as it is 22

an open and transparent process that can encourage 23

public participation. 24

In thinking about whether to include 25

9


negotiated rulemaking in the process rule, we will 1

think about ASRAC's role in the process, and, you 2

know, to be very clear and explicit that DOE values 3

and appreciates ASRAC members valuing their time to 4

participate in advising the Department on issues 5

related to appliance and equipment standards and the 6

work that you have done over the years. 7

With respect to work already done by ASRAC, 8

we will consider any term sheets that are currently 9

pending before the Department coming from earlier 10

negotiated rulemakings. The comment period on the 11

process rule RFI is open through February 16th of this 12

year, and we encourage interested parties to submit 13

comments, including ASRAC members. 14

I believe yesterday there was a request for 15

that to be opened for an extension of that deadline, 16

and we will also consider that as well. But, you 17

know, we definitely want to get your comments about 18

the process rule. That is very important to us. 19

So thanks again for your time and commitment 20

to energy efficiency and renewable energy. So thank 21

you very much for all of the work that you do. John. 22

MR. CYMBALSKY: Thank you, Daniel. 23

I'd point out also we do appreciate -- his 24

time is very valuable, and we do appreciate him 25

10


kicking off our meeting. 1

So we have a few minutes before the next -- 2

the ethics briefing, and so what I'll do is go back to 3

sit in my usual chair, and we'll do some introductions 4

until about 10:30, when our ethics officer should be 5

around. 6

(Pause.) 7

MR. CYMBALSKY: Okay. So we're going to go 8

around and do introductions. And since this is the 9

first time this entire group has met together, I would 10

ask everyone as they introduce themselves, the 11

committee members, that is, name and organization, but 12

how about a little meat on that bone since, we 13

probably want to know what we do in our current 14

employment, maybe in our past employment too, to kind 15

of give a fuller picture of who we are and what we do. 16

So why don't we just start to my left with 17

Kristen. 18

MS. DRISKELL: Okay. I'm Kristen Driskell. 19

I'm with the California Energy Commission. I manage 20

the appliance standards office, the appliances and 21

outreach and education office at the Energy 22

Commission. In my previous life, I was a lawyer for 23

the Energy Commission. 24

MR. HOROWITZ: Good morning, everyone. I'm 25

11


Noah Horowitz, and with the Natural Resources Defense 1

Council, NRDC, an environmental advocacy group. I 2

head up our Center for Energy Efficiency standards, 3

and I work both at the state, federal, and 4

international levels. I tend to focus on consumer 5

electronics and lighting, and also new construction. 6

And in a prior life, I headed up the environmental 7

programs for Quaker Oats. So if you want to talk 8

oatmeal, I can do that as well. Thank you. 9

MR. GATTO: Hi. I'm Dave Gatto, 10

Westinghouse Lighting. Westinghouse Lighting, 11

we're -- don't let the name fool you. As some of you 12

have heard before, we're a small business, family-run 13

since 1946. In my past experience, I have worked at 14

the same company for the last 28 years, in a variety 15

of product and regulatory roles. The last five or six 16

years have been mainly focused on efficiency 17

regulations, state and local, or federal and state, as 18

well as environmental programs. 19

MR. WOLF: Good morning, Mike Wolf from 20

Greenheck. To steal a little bit of David's 21

background here, I'm with Greenheck Corporation out of 22

Wisconsin, headquartered in Wisconsin. We have 23

manufacturing facilities throughout the U.S. and a 24

couple internationally, again family -- a first 25

12


generation family operation. Greenheck is the family 1

name, and our most notable products are the fan, 2

commercial fan- and ventilator-type products. But we 3

do offer a full line of other HVAC-type equipment as 4

well. 5

I got my start with Greenheck a couple of 6

years ago, I guess, plus 30. I started at Greenheck 7

right out of college, and held a number of roles 8

throughout my time with Greenheck. It has been a good 9

ride. I never anticipated getting involved in the 10

regulatory type assignments, but for the past three 11

years, I've been drinking through a fire hose, 12

learning the whole regulatory process. Thank you. 13

MS. JAKOBS: Hello. My name is Diane 14

Jakobs. I work for Rheem Manufacturing, and I'm an 15

engineer. And I've been -- I've worked on -- in a 16

number of areas at Rheem, in advanced R&D. I've been 17

an engineering manager for gas-fired furnaces. I've 18

worked in government affairs. And Rheem 19

Manufacturing, we build water heaters, HVAC, 20

commercial refrigeration, and boilers. And we like to 21

say we control 65 percent of the energy consumed in 22

people's homes. So thank you. 23

MR. HON: Hello. I'm Charlie Hon with True 24

Manufacturing. I've been in the industry for 30 25

13


years, and with True Manufacturing for over 20. We 1

basically manufacture commercial refrigeration. We do 2

some residential refrigeration, but our focus is on 3

commercial refrigeration. We're a large company based 4

out of St. Louis, Missouri, and the suburbs. We have 5

multiple manufacturing facilities within the state of 6

Missouri, and we are very active in a lot of different 7

areas as far as these different negotiations for 8

years. Thank you. 9

MS. ARMSTRONG: My name is Ashley Armstrong. 10

I am the representative for the Department of Energy 11

on ASRAC. I'm one of the two supervisors in the 12

Appliance Standards Program. I mainly focus on the 13

test procedure development and the compliance testing 14

program, and dab a little bit in Energy Star. 15

MR. CYMBALSKY: I'm John Cymbalsky. I am 16

not an ASRAC member, but I am the designated federal 17

officer for this advisory committee. Along with 18

Ashley, I manage the Appliance Standards Program here 19

at DOE since February of 2010. Before that, 20 years 20

with Energy Information Administration, mostly doing 21

modeling of future energy use in the residential 22

sector. 23

MR. deLASKI: I'm Andrew deLaski. I'm the 24

executive director of the Appliance Standards 25

14


Awareness Project. ASAP is a coalition project that 1

has a membership that consists of representatives from 2

consumer groups, some of which were here yesterday, 3

environmental groups, state government 4

representatives, and the utility sector. We're a 5

coalition that works to advance cost-effective energy 6

efficiency standards at the federal level and at the 7

state level. 8

I've been with ASAP since its inception and 9

worked on standards, oh, starting in the Clinton 10

administration, during the Bush administration, over 11

the course of the past eight years, and then currently 12

serving on ASRAC and involved in pretty much every DOE 13

proceeding and most state proceedings over that span 14

of the past 20 years. So I've been pretty deeply 15

involved in a bunch of rulemakings, some negotiated 16

through -- privately, some negotiated through the 17

ASRAC process, which I think has been very successful, 18

and we've seen a higher level of consensus around new 19

standards over the past, you know -- during ASRAC's 20

period than we have prior to that. So it has been a 21

gratifying experience for me to serve on this 22

committee, and I look forward to continuing it over 23

the next period. 24

MS. CLEARY: Jennifer Cleary with the 25

15


Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. And we 1

represent manufacturers of home appliances, but, you 2

know, clothes washers, other major appliances, your 3

portable appliances like blenders, things like that, 4

and also floor care. 5

I lead on the regulatory affairs, with the 6

focus being on Department of Energy, FTC, Energy Star, 7

and product safety at the Consumer Product Safety 8

Commission. And before that, I was counsel to AHAM 9

and also working on antitrust issues. 10

MR. WINNINGHAM: I'm Dave Winningham. I 11

work for Lennox International. I've been an 12

engineering manager focused on regulatory affairs for 13

about the last five to seven years, and prior to that 14

was heavily involved in product development. Lennox 15

International is a U.S.-based HVAC and refrigeration 16

organization, and I've been actively involved in ASRAC 17

and a variety of regulatory standard development for 18

the last seven years. Thanks. 19

MS. MILLER: Hello. I'm Sofie Miller. I'm 20

a senior policy analyst at the George Washington 21

University Regulatory Studies Center. In that 22

capacity, I focus on all federal regulatory issues 23

that affect consumers. And more and more, over the 24

past several years, that has included energy 25

16


efficiency standards. And so I'm very, very pleased 1

to be here. 2

I recognize so many of your names from so 3

many comments that I've read, so it's such a pleasure 4

to meet you all in person. And as some background, my 5

background is in economics, and I take an economic 6

approach to analyzing some of these federal regulatory 7

issues, with a special focus on retrospective review, 8

and also on heterogeneity between consumers and 9

different impacts for different consumer groups. 10

MS. SIM: Hi. Michelle Sim with SoCalGas. 11

My current role at SoCalGas actually changed from the 12

time that I was originally appointed to the ASRAC 13

committee, so currently I am the clean transportation 14

manager at SoCalGas. Previously, I was with the COSEN 15

(phonetic) standards team, leading efforts in an 16

energy efficiency and efforts with the statewide COSEN 17

standards team in California. 18

SoCalGas serves over 21 million customers 19

from central California, from Visalia all the way down 20

to the Mexican border. Our interest is still to 21

advance energy efficiency in gas appliances. And I'm 22

happy to represent California and SoCalGas, so thank 23

you for having us. 24

MR. CYMBALSKY: Okay. So let's start again 25

17


to my left with Kevin, and we'll go with name and 1

affiliation for the audience members. 2

MR. WASHINGTON: Kevin Washington, Illinois 3

Tool Works, government affairs office. 4

MR. BORYCA: Chris Boryca, Illinois Tool 5

Works, Charleston. 6

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Steve Rosenstock, Edison 7

Electric Institute. 8

MS. HOOTMAN: Jill Hootman, Ingersoll Rand. 9

MR. BOESENBERG: Alex Boesenberg, National 10

Electrical Manufacturers Association. 11

MR. WEEMS: Mike Weems, American Lighting 12

Association. 13

MR. PERRY: Chris Perry (phonetic), American 14

Council for an Energy Efficient Economy. 15

MR. McCRUDDEN: Charlie McCrudden, Daiken 16

U.S. Corporation. 17

MS. SEGRESS: Flora Segress (phonetic), 18

Whirlpool Corporation. 19

MR. ANDERSON: Kirk Anderson, NEMA. 20

MR. BUTLER: Kitt Butler, Advanced Energy. 21

MS. ANDERSON: Mary Anderson, PG&E. 22

MR. KUNDU: Bijit Kundu, Energy Solutions, 23

supporting PG&E. 24

MR. GOLLAPUDI: Chandra Gollapudi, Regal 25

18


Beloit Corporation. 1

MR. O'DONNELL: Kevin O'Donnell, Bluffton 2

Motor Works, L.A. 3

MR. IRVING: Steve Irving with Lutron 4

Electronics. 5

MR. CATANIA: Tom Catania, consultant to the 6

Air Movement and Control Association. 7

MR. NEMTZOW: Hi. I'm David Nemtzow. I'm 8

director of the Building Technologies Office here at 9

DOE. And I just want to add my voice to Daniel and 10

Ashley's and John's in thanking you all for your time 11

and attention to this issue, which is at the heart of 12

what building technologies does and at the heart of 13

what DOE does. Thanks. 14

MR. COHEN: I'm Dan Cohen, General Counsel's 15

office here at DOE. 16

MS. GRACE-TARDY: Ami Grace-Tardy, also in 17

General Counsel's office at DOE. 18

MR. BALLO: Tim Ballo at Earthjustice. 19

MR. ECKMAN: Tom Eckman Northwest Public 20

Power Council, former ASRAC member. 21

MR. BRUMEISTER: George Brumeister, 22

president, Colorado Energy Group, Boulder, Colorado. 23

MR. WHITE: Bo White, NegaWatt Consulting, 24

supporting SoCalGas. 25

19


MS. GARCIA: Daniela Garcia, SoCalGas. 1

MR. RABA: Jim Raba, Appliance Standards 2

Program, DOE. 3

MS. GOOCH: Leslie Gooch, the Manufactured 4

Housing Institute. 5

MS. BEIGAY: Kara Beigay, the Manufactured 6

Housing Institute. 7

MR. TRUSKOSKI: Eric Truskoski, Bradford 8

White Corporation. 9

MS. DAVIDSON-HOOD: Caroline Davidson-Hood, 10

Air Conditioning, Heating, and Refrigeration 11

Institute. 12

MR. BRUNDAGE: Don Brundage, Southern 13

Company. 14

MS. JOHNSON: Stephanie Johnson, appliance 15

standards, DOE. 16

MS. EVEST: Catherine Rivest, appliance 17

standards, DOE. 18

MS. WILLIAMS: Alison Williams, Lawrence 19

Berkeley National Lab. 20

MR. TYREE: James Tyree, office of 21

information and regulatory affairs. 22

MR. FIBEE: George Fibee, office of general 23

counsel. 24

MS. CHRISTENSON: Sue Christenson 25

20


(phonetic), Oak Ridge Utility District. 1

MS. BENJAMIN: Sasha Benjamin, Oak Ridge 2

Utility District. 3

MS. MENEES: Sydney Menees, office of 4

policy. 5

MR. CYMBALSKY: And last but not least -- 6

this is a good segue for our next segment of the 7

meeting. 8

MS. KESTENBAUM: Hi. I'm Rachel Kestenbaum. 9

I'm also in the general counsel's office. I'm going 10

to pass around some handouts. 11

MR. CYMBALSKY: We're not going to 12

transcribe the ethics briefing at this time. 13

(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.) 14

MR. CYMBALSKY: Okay. So one piece of ASRAC 15

business before we get into more of the subject matter 16

content. As you know, the committee has always had 17

two cochairs. And since John Caskey rotated off the 18

committee about a year ago, we only have Andrew as a 19

chair by himself. But I'm happy to announce we have a 20

new cochair, and that's Dave Gatto of Westinghouse. 21

He has agreed graciously to take on a role as cochair. 22

So we look forward to Dave and Andrew 23

working very closely together in terms of managing the 24

committee just a bit in terms of its direction. 25

21


So with that, we'll go back to our agenda 1

that I can't see on the screen at the moment. But 2

basically, what we're going to talk about is what 3

ASRAC has done in the past, a little bit of an 4

overview, since we do have a couple of new members who 5

haven't quite participated fully in the past. 6

So the committee over the past few years, 7

the focus has mainly been forming and executing 8

working groups to negotiate standards, test 9

procedures, compliance, things like that for a variety 10

of products. 11

I think by and large everyone would agree 12

that this has been very successful. I think DOE has 13

been very appreciative of the work of both the working 14

groups that ASRAC forms as well as ASRAC writ large to 15

pass along to DOE these recommendations for product 16

efficiency standards or compliance requirements, et 17

cetera. 18

Having said that, I know there has been a 19

few -- I think so far we've done about a dozen of 20

those, as I recollect. And there has been a few 21

outstanding. I know that we finished some work back 22

at the end of 2016, and there is some recommendations 23

that ASRAC has forwarded to DOE. And I know Daniel in 24

his opening remarks mentioned that DOE is still 25

22


contemplating these outstanding items, and we continue 1

to do so and consider as we go through time. 2

We've also tackled some other issues as we 3

went along. I think one big issue that ASRAC had 4

contemplated was looking forward into the future, the 5

idea of -- we have a bunch of product standards, but 6

was there a way to do more of a systems approach to 7

how we regulate different products. And so we formed 8

a little committee, and I know they did some work over 9

the past couple of years. That could be something 10

that we're still interested in, and we could talk 11

about today some more. 12

Of course, we're definitely interested in 13

any new ideas that the committee wants to bring to 14

everybody's attention. As you also heard Daniel 15

mention in his opening remarks, that the process 16

reform meeting yesterday and all the comments that we 17

will receive in the next couple of weeks into that 18

docket, I think we have great interest for ASRAC to 19

also comment, either individually or as a group, in 20

terms of that RFI that was issued last month. 21

So I think that's something that all of us 22

as ASRAC members should keep in mind and think very 23

hard about how any process improvements through that 24

RFI is something that ASRAC should comment on. 25

23


And let's see, what else? So other recent 1

notices that DOE has put out, I think what you've seen 2

a lot of recently are RFIs relating to test procedure 3

amendments. And so we've issued, I don't know, about 4

a half dozen or so of those over the past few months, 5

and we continue to work towards proposals in that 6

space. 7

We've also issued a final rule on lighting 8

products recently. I think some people may have seen 9

that. And we continue to work on other rules as we go 10

through our regularly scheduled rulemaking activity. 11

So that's sort of where we are at the moment. I think 12

maybe I'll turn to Andrew to see if he has anything, 13

or Dave as cochair, if you want to add to any of the 14

history of the ASRAC. You've been here since the 15

beginning, so -- 16

MR. deLASKI: Sure. I'll just add my 17

welcome to everybody, and especially to the two new 18

members. Welcome to the committee, and to those who 19

have been reappointed. I couple of people just were 20

reappointed, I think, so Diane and others. 21

And I'm glad to have a cochair again. Thank 22

you, Dave, for stepping up for that role. It's not a 23

very significant additional burden in the sense that 24

the Department -- well, he runs the committee, but to 25

24


the extent that we help with the agenda, if there are 1

things that people want to see on the agenda for the 2

meetings, you know, please raise it with John, with 3

me, or with Dave, and we'll be sure to, you know, help 4

make sure that we have an agenda that reflects the 5

interests of the members. 6

And I -- you know, according to the agenda, 7

I hoped to have some Q&A time with the deputy 8

assistant secretary, but apparently his schedule 9

didn't allow for that, so we'll -- a number -- since 10

we haven't met for a year, there has been a lot of 11

water over the dam in that period of time. And I know 12

that a number of members had been asking for meetings. 13

But again, the Department controls that in the end, 14

so it's up to the Department, you know. 15

But I'm really happy to see that the 16

Department has decided that the committee will 17

continue because that ultimately wasn't a clear thing 18

to I think all of us, you know, going into this year, 19

the change of administrations. There is a question 20

about whether the committee would continue. And I 21

think, you know, I'm very happy to see that the new 22

administration has decided to continue the committee. 23

And I think that wasn't necessarily a slam-dunk 24

decision, right? I think it was there are people in 25

25


this room who asked for the committee's continuance, 1

people who are in the audience, people in industry who 2

recognize that the negotiation process -- that we've 3

come a long way in terms of the process for developing 4

appliance standards, and that one of the major 5

innovations, major success stories, I think, of the 6

past few years has been the normalization of using 7

negotiation in a structured, planned way that is 8

predictable, that has led to a process that is more 9

transparent -- all the meetings are open to the 10

public. 11

Anyone in this room or outside of this room 12

can participate in all of the meeting. And it has 13

been a process that I think has been -- led to better 14

outcomes, and -- than we would have been able to 15

achieve. And if people simply sit back in their 16

offices and throw comments in over the transom, the 17

Department processes it, and then something comes out 18

the other end, without having sat in a room like this 19

and looked each other in the eye and talk about 20

things -- you know, talk things through, and getting 21

to outcomes that benefit the public, that benefit the 22

manufacturing sector, and that ultimately deliver the 23

energy conservation benefits that the statute was 24

designed to create in ways that, as Daniel said, 25

26


reduce regulatory burden, still achieve (phonetic) 1

Congress' mandate to set standards that are 2

technologically feasible and economically justified. 3

So I am very optimistic that we can continue 4

that progress over the next several years. What would 5

be a shame is if the program freezes up, right, 6

because we've all experienced periods -- over the past 7

dozen years, the program sort of moved forward with a 8

very pretty predictable cadence, starting with 9

Secretary Bodman's tenure here at the Department. 10

There was a commitment to a schedule, and 11

the Department did a good job of sticking with that 12

schedule. Really starting in about 2006, there was a 13

consent decree and a lawsuit. There was a schedule 14

given to Congress. There was a commitment to a 15

schedule. And that schedule was largely caught up on 16

over the past dozen years, with most of the final 17

action happening during the past eight years. 18

And what would be a shame is if things 19

freeze up because then what you get is you get a 20

bunching up of overdue deadlines, and then at some 21

point, a lurching forward again. So you end up with 22

lulls in regulatory activity followed by speedup of 23

regulatory activity. And my friends in industry don't 24

like speedups of regulatory activity. I've heard that 25

27


time and time again. 1

So how do we keep going with a regular 2

cadence of predictable improvements achieved through 3

open public processes that benefit the public and 4

provide predictability to manufacturing sector -- is 5

really to me the charge for this committee, and one 6

that I hope that we can continue to work in a 7

collaborative way on over the next few years. 8

I got a couple of big questions that I hope 9

we can wrestle with today, which is -- no, one of 10

which is I think -- I appreciate Daniel Simmons' words 11

and statements in support of negotiation. What we 12

need to know, is the Department prepared to move 13

forward on new -- is the Department prepared to 14

support new negotiations. And we have one on the 15

agenda today, so we'll find out. And is the 16

Department willing to act on previously-negotiated 17

agreements, you know, because if we aren't -- you 18

know, that's sort of a threshold question that we have 19

to -- we didn't get an answer to, because, you know, 20

then, you know, for obvious reasons, if there is not a 21

commitment from the Department, then what are we doing 22

right here? 23

And then the second question I have is a 24

question about the schedule. I appreciate the 25

28


repeated commitments to meet statutory deadlines 1

iterated -- reiterated before Congress yesterday. Yet 2

we saw in the unified agenda published last month a 3

schedule that took 20 standards and moved them -- 4

standards activity and moved them from active status 5

to long-term status, 17 test methods moved from active 6

status to long-term status with a next step TBD, many 7

of which have legal deadlines that have passed. 8

Others have legal deadlines coming up. 9

So one of the ways that we succeed in 10

negotiation is because we know that if we don't 11

negotiate, the Department is going to act anyway. But 12

if the message from the Department is, well, we're not 13

sure we're going to act, we said we're going to meet 14

our deadlines, but yet we publish a schedule that has 15

us missing all of our deadlines, how do we behave? 16

What are we to make of that? 17

So these are my two big questions. One is 18

the Department's willingness to move forward on 19

negotiated -- previous -- move forward on negotiated 20

agreements, and two, a commitment to a schedule, 21

because if we don't have a commitment to schedule, 22

then what is to bring people to the table? Because 23

some folks will just say, well, I'll just wait because 24

maybe nothing will happen until it all gets bunched up 25

29


into some future date. 1

So these are to me kind of gating questions 2

for this committee. And I guess I had hoped to get 3

some guidance from Deputy Secretary Simmons. David or 4

John or Ashley, if you could provide us some guidance, 5

I think it would really help the committee's business 6

today. Or if other committee members want to weigh in 7

on this or other questions. 8

MR. CYMBALSKY: Yes. I think we should hear 9

from all of the committee members who want to speak to 10

these issues or any other issue here at the onset, and 11

have a dialogue here. 12

MR. GATTO: I guess before that -- because 13

I'll probably want to participate in that dialogue. 14

Thank you, Andrew and John. You know, I appreciate 15

it. I feel a little honored. Hopefully, it will not 16

be a huge lift just with the amount of regulatory work 17

I have on my plate. But I was very excited to be able 18

to join the ASRAC committee. I see a huge value in 19

negotiated rulemakings where they make sense. 20

We've had limited opportunities to do some 21

other issues on the lighting side where we couldn't 22

really bring in ASRAC. And I think we might have had 23

some different and maybe even better outcomes if we 24

had been able to do that. We tried to do it outside, 25

30


but really kind of like you said, Andrew, without 1

certainty, there are too many competing voices about 2

do we wait, what do we want, what don't we want. 3

And so I -- I think the structure that ASRAC 4

brings to that, where we are at a negotiating table, 5

and there is a knowledge that what we do here will, 6

depending on the answer John or Ashley gives in a 7

minute to Andrew's question, that DOE will take action 8

on that. And I guess the only thing that I would say 9

is that I'm -- you know, I'm looking forward to it. 10

So hopefully Andrew will be able to tell me if I'm 11

steering the bus too far left or right, and I look 12

forward to working with you. 13

MR. CYMBALSKY: Diane. 14

MS. JAKOBS: So this is Diane Jakobs from 15

Rheem. And as an engineer, I'm on, I don't know, like 16

25 committees, and I've worked on a number of test 17

procedures for safety and for energy consumption. And 18

I think that that is the most important part, that we 19

do that energy consumption levels and the energy 20

efficiency level, it's really dependent on the test 21

procedure. And I'm hopeful that we -- and it's very 22

detailed, difficult work. 23

So I'm hopeful that we can move forward 24

working on these test procedures, if that's the only 25

31


thing we can do now. I'm not sure what will happen, 1

but I think we've -- as manufacturers over the number 2

of years that my company has sold regulated products, 3

we have made significant improvements. I mentioned we 4

use 65 percent of the energy in someone's home. It's 5

a -- one of the main attributes that we use to sell 6

our equipment, and we -- I think some of the test 7

procedures have fallen behind, and the losses that 8

we're accounting for aren't losses anymore, and the 9

controls are significantly different from what the 10

test procedures assumed in the 1970s. And there is a 11

lot of progress we can make. 12

So I hope that we'll be able to move forward 13

on the test procedures. Thank you. 14

MR. HON: Charlie Hon. We have a couple of 15

points we would like to make because as a company, we 16

have a set of products which should be up for -- under 17

the next round of rulemakings at this time, and we 18

have not heard any activity on that because the DOE 19

has been slow to respond on some of the discussions. 20

But what I get concerned about is if we get 21

off-schedule and we start bunching, as Andrew said, we 22

end up compressing time windows. The rulemaking gets 23

very difficult because we don't allot enough time to 24

think through every step because a lot of times in 25

32


negotiated rulemaking, we come to one meeting. People 1

leave. They go back to their offices and find flaws 2

in the previous discussion. And if we don't have 3

enough time to really do every step in a nice, orderly 4

manner, we will do less of a quality job. 5

I think that's part of our responsibility 6

here, is to make sure that we can do it in an orderly 7

manner to get the best possible results. And the only 8

way that happens is on a time schedule, which is very 9

predictable, very understandable, and has a reasonable 10

amount of time to cover the topics, especially in the 11

order at which they should be done. 12

Test procedures should be done before energy 13

efficiency standards are set because if we don't know 14

what we're testing to, how do we know what the energy 15

levels would be -- how it would be maintained. Thank 16

you. 17

MR. HOROWITZ: Hi. Noah Horowitz with NRDC. 18

First, this is my first meeting, and I've been 19

watching ASRAC's activity from a distance with many of 20

my staff and colleagues participating, and it has been 21

a very effective forum for providing even more 22

creative solutions and delivering the savings that 23

we're all seeking here. 24

I want to express my support for the 25

33


comments Andrew deLaski just made, and in particular 1

we should keep the train moving in a smooth fashion 2

that's predictable and understood by all. And I too 3

am struck by the potential inconsistency of the agency 4

saying we intend to meet all of our statutory 5

requirements, yet what has shown up in the unified 6

agenda, it doesn't seem like things are moving. 7

So to the extent today or shortly thereafter 8

we could get further clarity, that of course will 9

influence the direction and activities of ASRAC. 10

Thanks. 11

MS. CLEARY: Jenn Cleary with AHAM. You 12

know, I support the, you know, Appliance Standards 13

Program's continued, you know, commitment to meeting 14

its deadlines. I think that as far as this committee 15

is concerned, some products may be ripe for 16

negotiations, as we've seen in the past, and others 17

may not. So I hope that where product categories are 18

ripe for standards negotiation that this committee 19

continues to be involved in directing those and 20

facilitating them. 21

And for the others and also for those that 22

will be on a negotiated schedule, you know, I think 23

that as we talked about, you know, a couple of years 24

ago, this committee can be active in helping DOE 25

34


develop schedules or mechanisms for schedules that 1

will ensure, as Charlie was discussing, test 2

procedures are done first, that statutory deadlines 3

and other obligations are met, and also that the 4

Department's resources, which, you know, I think we're 5

learning how those may be allocated -- hopefully, 6

you'll be sharing that with us after this discussion, 7

but that those resources can be allocated to the 8

rulemakings where they're most needed. 9

And I think that was discussed by a number 10

of parties at yesterday's process rule meeting, so 11

perhaps there will be overlap as the process rule 12

evolves. But I would hope that as we discussing, 13

those kinds of time lines and schedules and this 14

committee's involvement in that, that we could 15

continue on that pathway as well. 16

MS. SIM: I think -- Michelle Sim, SoCalGas. 17

I think this committee plays an important role in 18

setting standards nationally, and it affects -- and in 19

California -- I think, Kristen, you can agree that it 20

affects California in a significant way as well. 21

But it helps to predictably set a specific 22

standard in a structured format for industry that I 23

think as a utility it helps us to set goals. It helps 24

us to facilitate -- I guess achievable goals for our 25

35


customers as well. And that's an important aspect of 1

what we do as utilities in supporting our customers, 2

and in a lot of R&D work that we do with industry. 3

So having this continue in this structured 4

format I think is very helpful, and we do support 5

that, so hopefully this will continue. 6

MR. CYMBALSKY: Do you want to dovetail on 7

that -- 8

MS. DRISKELL: Sure. Kristen Driskell, 9

California Energy Commission, agreeing that the 10

federal standards definitely affect California. One 11

of the things that I've seen in previous ASRACs -- I 12

mean, this is my first meeting, but I've watched again 13

from a distance for a while -- is having some sense of 14

priority driven by the statutory deadlines. And so 15

we've had schedules put out that show when things are 16

coming up, and then how do we prioritize among those 17

things, acknowledging that, as Jenn mentioned, some 18

products are more ripe for negotiation than others, 19

and maybe test procedures are one of the highest 20

priorities, it sounds like, from this group. 21

And without that kind of schedule, I don't 22

know how we are able to prioritize what we do here. 23

And so I think it would be helpful to understand what 24

our priorities are and what the Department's 25

36


priorities are so that we can be productive and not 1

spend too much time just talking about things, but 2

actually get to work. 3

MR. CYMBALSKY: Dave? 4

MR. WINNINGHAM: This is Dave Winningham, 5

Lennox International. Kind of dovetailing to the 6

group's conversation here, but particularly to 7

Andrew's comments, I think it would be particularly 8

helpful to understand kind of DOE's view of kind of 9

the role that they expect out of this committee. 10

Obviously, Daniel made a statement today for support, 11

but in what role and in what capacity, and how can we 12

be most effective to help DOE meet those statutory 13

requirements in an effective manner, you know, that 14

minimizes the adverse effects of some of the typical 15

notice and comments. 16

Yesterday, in the process rule -- you know, 17

there was a process rule meeting for those who 18

attended -- we kind of heard some of the horror 19

stories of the past, of various rulemakings. And I 20

think we also heard over and over again that the 21

negotiated approach -- and we heard ASRAC suggested 22

several times as a preferred process. 23

And I think that what shows is we're taking 24

the learnings from some of the things that may not 25

37


have worked, and through ASRAC or an outside 1

negotiated -- and using those learnings to be more 2

effective and come up with rules that work for the 3

consumers, for industry, and for, you know, the nation 4

as a whole. 5

So I think having a view of how we can best 6

utilize our resources and prioritize and help the 7

Department achieve its goals in a manner that -- you 8

know, that -- you know, it's difficult to have all in 9

agreement, but you can -- I think through the work you 10

can collectively get most, and make some significant 11

progress. 12

MR. CYMBALSKY: Mike. 13

MR. WOLF: So I too agree with everything 14

that has been said here. I guess, Andrew, I don't 15

know -- I'd like to maybe provide an update on what 16

has happened with regard to the commercial industrial 17

fan rule, the term sheet that we approved in one of 18

our last -- in our more recent last meetings. They 19

weren't recent, but it was one of the last meetings we 20

had. I don't know if this would be a time to do that, 21

or if you'd like to do that later in the agenda. 22

MR. deLASKI: That makes sense to me. 23

MR. WOLF: Okay. So for our industry and 24

our company, we've now lived through the regulatory 25

38


things, so this has all been kind of new ground for 1

us. And what has happened since this administration 2

has come in and we've kind of tapped the brakes on 3

what this committee has been doing, is California has 4

now taken up the regulatory exercise for commercial 5

and industrial fans and blowers. 6

I understand New York has announced plans to 7

do something similar. I anticipate that probably 8

Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts, and others will 9

follow suit at some point. And now what we're left 10

dealing with is instead of a single ASRAC or federal 11

regulation, we're dealing with the state of 12

California. And we anticipate we'll be dealing with 13

the state of New York next. 14

I'm sorry, Kristen. I didn't mean any 15

disrespect there. Ashley, you're smiling at it. I've 16

enjoyed my discussions with Kristen, and the work is 17

going well. But my point is that it's going to be 18

multiplied, okay? Instead of dealing with just one 19

regulatory requirement, you know, we may end up with 20

multiple requirements, which are going to -- it's 21

going to be more burdensome not only to my company, 22

because there is only one of me doing this right now 23

and, you know, prior to me doing this, we didn't have 24

anyone. But, you know, I can keep track of -- you 25

39


know, kind of keep track of Ashley and John, to some 1

degree. But if I need to now start tracking multiple 2

states, it will -- you know, there is going to need to 3

be another one or two of me created within my company, 4

which will add extra cost and burden to what we're 5

doing, on top of the fact that now we won't, you know, 6

potentially have consistent requirements or even test 7

requirements across states. 8

So we may end up, you know, having to 9

develop, you know, products and register products that 10

are inconsistent -- you know, have to meet different 11

requirements for different states. So that's going to 12

add additional burden. 13

And I want to go on to say, too, that, you 14

know, for our industry, our -- my company is 15

relatively large compared to many of our competitors. 16

A lot of our competitors -- as far as I can recall, 17

the major ones are, you know, relatively small, 18

family-owned companies. They do not have people -- 19

you know, not that I'm anything special, but they 20

don't even have someone like me that they can afford 21

to assign to keep track of what is going on with these 22

various regulations. 23

So bottom line is there is going to be 24

more -- you know, more burden from -- in terms of 25

40


tracking the regulations and participating in the 1

regulatory process. There is going to be more burden 2

associated with the fact that we may have to develop 3

products to meet multiple regulations. And at the end 4

of the day, you know, that's not good for the 5

manufacturers. I don't believe it will be good for 6

the consumers in the long haul because, you know, all 7

these costs ultimately get passed on to the consumer. 8

And, you know -- and the other thing is I'm 9

not even sure in some cases, you know, depending on 10

how the analysis is done, you know, what the true 11

energy savings impact will be if -- you know, if the 12

regulations are not done properly. And this group, as 13

we've discussed and others have mentioned, you know, 14

we have the process kind of down. 15

There has been a lot of learnings, I think, 16

that we've been able to benefit from over the years, 17

work that has been done. So it would be a shame to 18

see that stop. Thank you. 19

MR. HON: I'd like to just put a little bit 20

of historical history as far as products and things 21

we've dealt with. This is Charlie Hon. Michael just 22

made some references, but to give you an -- I think 23

sometimes we need to look at the real -- look back in 24

history to learn from it. 25

41


Okay. Commercial refrigeration in the early 1

2000s was a non-federally-regulated product. 2

California started in the '70s regulating our product. 3

In early 2002, it became very serious. Energy Star 4

was involved into it at that level. We were one of 5

the original Energy Star partners in the projects. 6

But at that time, we got to the point where we had 17 7

states with 4 different regulation levels, and every 8

one of them required individual certifications to the 9

states. 10

So we were reporting -- build a new unit, 17 11

reports going to 17 locations. And so the industry as 12

a whole decided this was not a good functioning 13

system, and we all agreed to it because it was just a 14

terrible burden. So we went to the government and 15

asked for federal regulations to cover our products so 16

that we had a single goal, a single target, and a 17

well-understood test standard because test standards 18

were not the same either. 19

So we as an industry entered in and asked 20

the government for regulations, not like some 21

industries, which get drug in. But we asked for it in 22

the mid-2005, 2007 regulations. And we got them. 23

That was the reason for that, because it solidified a 24

system. It made it clear. It made it understandable. 25

42


In our industry, there is at least 90 different 1

competitors in our product classifications. 2

So there are so many different entities. 3

It's not like driven by the auto industry, where you 4

have 10 or 12 players. We had 90-plus. And some of 5

those were beyond that -- are not being counted right 6

now because they're so low-level, they're under the 7

radar screen. But it clarifies the issues. We wanted 8

it, we needed it. And one of the things that people 9

tend to think is everybody runs around saying, we 10

don't want regulations. 11

Sometimes regulations are necessary. It 12

makes things at a level playing field. It controls 13

improper importation of products which don't meet the 14

standards. It makes it much clearer how to handle 15

products. So we need to keep that level of 16

consistency going. We need to have those deadlines 17

clear. We need to have a workable way to make sure 18

that everybody can participate, and this committee we 19

see as one of those most efficient ways to do that. 20

MR. WOLF: This is Mike Wolf, Greenheck. 21

One thing I'd like to just tack on to Charlie's 22

comments is with regard to the international front. 23

Two things there, I think, that, you know, are 24

advanced with a national regulation. One is it does, 25

43


as Charlie, I think, alluded to, create a level 1

playing field for, you know, foreign companies 2

importing into the U.S. 3

But I think more importantly, at least in 4

our situation, the rest of the world watches what the 5

U.S. does. And if we have a national regulation, 6

there is a good chance that other parts of the world 7

will adopt that, which then in turn allows us as U.S. 8

manufacturers to compete better on a global scale as 9

well. 10

So, you know, it goes beyond just the 11

states, but on the flip side, it expands into the 12

international realm as well from a -- you know, an 13

advantageous point for everyone. 14

MR. CYMBALSKY: Dave. 15

MR. GATTO: Yeah. Thanks, John. Dave 16

Gatto. So I just wanted to -- a slightly different 17

perspective. We're -- and this is not new 18

information, but part of why I was interested in and 19

decided to join ASRAC, and part of why -- my earlier 20

comment about national standards and negotiated 21

rulemakings was that many of the states act -- and, 22

Kristen, I won't speak for you. But most of the time, 23

they're acting in the absence of a federal rule 24

because they're trying to address conservation needs. 25

44


And so we respect that, but we have found 1

that in addition to the burden -- and it's a huge 2

burden, having to comply with multiple regulations at 3

the state level -- there is a larger efficiency pickup 4

nationally if we have a single unified standard 5

because one of the things that will come out of 6

multiple state standards is that, as Charlie said, we 7

end up developing products for individual states. 8

It's nothing against the state, but if those 9

products are more expensive or not in the interests to 10

consumers and other states, we're not going to only 11

carry those. It diversifies our investments. It 12

results in wider product lines on common items than we 13

need, and less investment in specialty products, niche 14

products, where some of the best -- particularly in 15

LED, for those of you don't know, you know, that we're 16

in lighting -- particularly in LED, where some of that 17

investment money can go into categories that aren't 18

currently getting the attention they need because 19

we've got -- you know, we're trying to get the core 20

products, the things everyone will want to buy. 21

So I do agree. I think that there is value 22

in the negotiated rulemaking. But part of that is 23

because you wouldn't have states having to spend the 24

time on that. And test procedures -- you know, Diane 25

45


said it. I made my comment yesterday in the process 1

rule. It came up during the fan rulemaking. The 2

amount of effort that DOE did -- and we appreciate 3

that you did a lot of juggling to try and get the rule 4

right. 5

But the reason that was necessary is because 6

we weren't sure what the results of the testing would 7

be while we were already setting standards. And so 8

getting that timing down, I think, is really 9

important. 10

MS. DRISKELL: Kristen Driskell, California 11

Energy Commission. Kind of following up on Dave's 12

comments, energy efficiency standards -- and I think 13

Michelle mentioned this -- are critical for state 14

energy planning, and especially in California where we 15

started setting standards for state energy planning 16

purposes. 17

Whether those standards are set at the state 18

or federal level is kind of the same to us. We 19

support it either way. And so hearing Dave's comments 20

that it's easier for manufacturers at the federal 21

level, I think that's something we should take to 22

heart -- we will help any way we can by setting state 23

standards, if not set at the federal level. But it 24

sounds like it might be better to do it that way. 25

46


MR. CYMBALSKY: Sofie, you want to provide a 1

perspective that might be different from the 2

manufacturer heavy conversation we've been having? 3

MS. MILLER: Yes. I'm happy to. One thing 4

that struck me -- thank you, all. This has been very 5

informative, and I appreciate it. One thing that 6

struck me was that particularly with Andrew and Noah's 7

comments about looking at the unified agenda and how 8

it doesn't look like certain things are set to 9

schedule, and wondering what will happen then for 10

meeting those statutory requirements -- and because I 11

work on a variety of federal regulatory issues, I have 12

been monitoring perhaps most closely than some, some 13

of the requirements of, for example, Executive Order 14

13771, and then the following executive orders, and 15

how YI (phonetic) and OMB are organizing with agencies 16

in order to full some of those new obligations. 17

And one thing that strikes me -- and you can 18

help me -- help to clarify if this is outside the 19

scope of our discussion. One thing that strikes me is 20

that if that -- if meeting some of those constraints 21

is an obstacle to the Department for continuing on its 22

rulemaking and being able to meet those in a way that 23

meets statutory deadlines, then maybe we can be 24

thinking about how to help the Department meet those 25

47


obligations so that we could move forward in a way 1

that does meet those deadlines. 2

But again, because I think about a lot of 3

different federal regulatory issues, it's possible 4

that some of that thinking is outside the scope of 5

this discussion. But that's what strikes me as being 6

perhaps productive or thinking about what are some of 7

the constraints on the Department that we could help 8

the Department meet in order to move forward. 9

MR. deLASKI: So that's -- I hear a lot of 10

good thoughts here, and what I'm pulling out of this 11

discussion is, you know, a little agenda setting, 12

right? And this is a nice agenda item. It's really a 13

question that goes back to the Department, but that 14

also is -- what I'm talking here is some ideas for how 15

to flesh out some potential agenda for work for the 16

committee. 17

I think this is one idea. What are the 18

things -- is the committee a good place to think about 19

how can we meet -- how can we help the agency define 20

how to meet the obligations of the recent executive 21

orders, while also complying with the law, right? 22

Because the statute prevails over executive order, 23

right? So they have to comply with both. And maybe 24

they're between a rock and a hard place. They are 25

48


between a rock and a hard place, right? So how do we 1

help them get out of that spot? Is there a role for 2

the committee? 3

I heard Jenn mention perhaps today we talked 4

a little bit about flagging what are some of the 5

products that may be things that we've been thinking 6

about as a target or as a potential subject for 7

negotiation. Some things are more likely to be a good 8

prospect than others. You know, perhaps we should 9

float some of those to get the juices flowing as to 10

what those things are if people want to float some 11

ideas. That has happened in past meetings where 12

people say, oh, well, maybe we should be thinking 13

about this product or that product. 14

I heard Diane mention test procedures, you 15

know. So are there particular test procedures -- in 16

yesterday's discussion, we had a little back and forth 17

over whether or not test procedures really were a good 18

topic for ASRAC committees or really belonged in the 19

providence of more narrow technical meetings like 20

others that you serve on, right? Or is it really an 21

ASRAC topic? 22

But maybe there are some test procedure 23

topics or certification topics, things that aren't 24

necessarily new standards, but that are obligations of 25

49


the Department that may in fact dovetail nicely with 1

what Sofie mentioned that may end up helping them to 2

meet the obligations under the executive orders 3

because in fact they may look like deregulatory 4

actions, right? They may look like easing the 5

regulatory burden if you are doing things in a 6

different way, you know, that is developed through 7

consensus, right? So this could be a way to be able 8

to help the Department advance -- you know, to also 9

meet the obligations under some of the executive 10

orders. 11

At the same time, I would like to -- I think 12

we do need to continue to learn from the Department -- 13

you know, there are a number of outstanding, you know, 14

previously negotiated agreements that are out there 15

still. So we need to learn -- I guess this would be 16

another agenda item I would suggest, is, you know, 17

what is the status of those items, and maybe just 18

report back from the agency today. 19

Circulators is a term sheet that was 20

completed in 2016. Under the terms of the term sheet, 21

there was supposed to be a final rule by last month. 22

There has been no action. All right. So this is a 23

finished term sheet. A lot of people, including some 24

from my organization, spent a lot of time on that 25

50


project. We got an agreement that was fully supported 1

by circulator manufacturers. They've asked -- they 2

followed up with the agency since then to ask if the 3

rule be proposed. And there has been deafening 4

silence. 5

All right. So this is a term sheet that is 6

now in limbo. So we've got to find out what is 7

happening with that, and what are the agency's plans 8

for the circulator term sheet. 9

Commercial package air conditions, there is 10

a term sheet that a bunch of us worked on, a number 11

people in the audience. I see Rusty back there, who 12

was the -- played a big role in making that thing come 13

together. Dave, others from the commercial AC 14

industry -- that term sheet includes -- that agreement 15

included a term sheet -- included term recommendation 16

number two under which the agency committed, which 17

committed -- under which the agency would initiate no 18

later than January 1, 2016, a rulemaking to address 19

fan energy use to better represent total fan energy 20

use, and it goes on for about a paragraph, the 21

specifics of the term. 22

And that's supposed to result in a final 23

rule for improved test method to Diane's point -- your 24

(phonetic) test method topic that people could be 25

51


working on by January 1, 2019. There was an RFI last 1

summer that raised some of the issues, kind of 2

obliquely, but it hasn't been taken on head on, and 3

where you're out from what that term sheet calls for a 4

final rule. 5

I don't think there is an AHRI committee 6

working on this, but I could be wrong. You know, so 7

what is happening on that? So that's a topic that 8

we'd like to see move forward because if we're going 9

to work on new terms, new negotiations, we have to 10

have commitments to follow through on the prior 11

negotiations. 12

If there is no commitment on those, then, 13

you know, why should we -- again, back to that first 14

question. Why should we be working on new ones if 15

you're not going to follow through on the old ones, if 16

all of us aren't going to follow through on the old 17

ones. Fans -- I'll let Mike talk to fans. He already 18

has. He's part of that working group. But there was 19

a term recommendation number three on the fan term 20

sheet that also had to do with test methods. 21

Walk-in coolers, recommendation number 22

six -- I'm really pleased that there has been an AHRI 23

working group working to address the walk-in cooler 24

topic. Dave's company makes those products, amongst 25

52


others in the room, I think. And we've been 1

participating in the AHRI committee, and DOE is 2

participating in that committee as well. 3

So that's one where I'm seeing -- you know, 4

it's not happening at DOE necessarily, but there was 5

progress towards addressing that term because of the 6

sustained commitment of the industry in that 7

agreement, as well as the agency. So I presume there 8

will be some point where the agency opens up a 9

rulemaking to carry out -- to make that industry test 10

method that's being developed through that process 11

into a new federal test method to underlie the walk-in 12

cooler standards or a future iteration of them. 13

So that's one that's -- seems to be working 14

pretty nicely, and perhaps is a model for the 15

commercial AC one. 16

Dedicated-purpose pool pumps, term number -- 17

recommendation number nine, DOE should investigate a 18

label that would facilitate proper application and 19

include specified horsepower information. I don't 20

think that work has been begun, but it's something 21

that should be followed up on. 22

Also coming on, dedicated-purpose pool pump 23

discussion -- there was, I think, agreement that there 24

should be, you know, work on pool pump replacement 25

53


motors. I think that has been happening behind the 1

scenes. The industry has been working to advance 2

that. And I hope the Department remains receptive to 3

-- I know there was a public commitment to be 4

receptive to that, and I want to just reinforce that 5

because part of the commitment on the part of the pool 6

pump manufacturers to stand with that term sheet was 7

an understanding, as I interpreted it, that the agency 8

would move forward to address the replacement pool 9

pump motors. 10

So there needs to be follow-through on that 11

commitment as well. Again, we need to continue as a 12

committee to bird-dog the prior term sheets to make 13

sure that they're followed through because, again, if 14

we can't -- if people don't follow through on their 15

prior commitments, how can we -- how can future 16

commitments have any meaning? 17

So I don't know, John and Ashley, if you 18

have any update, any further updates, on those 19

matters. And, you know, perhaps we can use -- have 20

some discussion on that. Perhaps we could have some 21

discussion on potential future topics. As another 22

potential future topic, I also would suggest that -- 23

well, at some point, we should come back to these 24

crosscutting issues, things that affect all 25

54


rulemakings, and get a little further into detail on 1

those. 2

MR. CYMBALSKY: Okay, so, I think Ashley 3

will speak on behalf of the Department based on what 4

she's heard. I will say, in 1986, I took a course in 5

differential equations and I didn't like it very much, 6

and then Sofie just reminded me how much I didn't like 7

it. 8

(Laughter.) 9

MR. CYMBALSKY: I'm glad I don't have to do 10

any differential equation work today. 11

MS. MILLER: You're welcome. 12

MS. ARMSTRONG: So thank you all for your 13

comments and your questions. I'm going to eloquently 14

try to answer some of them, while others we may still 15

have to take back and may still be more part of an 16

open item for us to get back to, but that being said, 17

I do want to reiterate something that I think is very 18

important, as in we do appreciate the work you do. We 19

appreciate the time, we appreciate your efforts, and 20

we appreciate your participation in this committee. 21

As Daniel mentioned, the committee is still 22

important to the new administration, so we look 23

forward to your continued roles in guiding the 24

appliance standards program and any new ideas you may 25

55


have. As Daniel also mentioned this morning, we are 1

still committed to meeting our statutory deadlines. 2

We are actively working on lots of different data 3

collection efforts to help inform our next steps, 4

whether that be on complex test procedure issues or 5

complex analysis issues. 6

There is still a lot of behind-the-scenes 7

work to that, and you've seen a number of RFIs raising 8

issues for feedback with regards to test procedures. 9

We are being very mindful of the new administration's 10

priorities to reduce regulatory burden and protect 11

consumers. To that end, we are very interested in 12

ASRAC's thoughts on those. That being said, we're 13

also interested in ASRAC's thoughts on how to better 14

engage industry test procedure committees. 15

This has come up in the past before with 16

regards to ASRAC and how ASRAC can assist both DOE's 17

and others' involvements in industry test procedure 18

committees to end up with a better product and help us 19

meet our statutory deadlines by being able to use 20

industry test procedures and rely on them fully more 21

often. Andrew mentioned walk-in coolers and freezers. 22

I actually think that's a great example. 23

I've been fairly intimately involved in that 24

one. Industry has really come to the table. AHRI has 25

56


been great and responsive with overseeing that 1

committee, setting schedules, setting deadlines. The 2

Department has provided support, as well as is doing 3

some research to help support the committee's work 4

there with some testing, external. I think that's a 5

great example. 6

There's been other ones that don't work so 7

well, and so perhaps one of the things ASRAC can talk 8

about is, how do we encourage all test procedure 9

committees, industry test procedure committees, to 10

work in that type of manner? And I will -- I think 11

it's important to note, AHAM is also working with the 12

Department in opening their committees to working with 13

the Department in providing new revisions as well. 14

So we're just starting that process, but I'm 15

equally as encouraged that that one will work as well 16

as some of the walk-in ones. So, that being said, 17

another thing I think we would ask for ASRAC, and 18

perhaps one of the things for the agenda items, is 19

ASRAC's thoughts on the process rule discussion from 20

yesterday. So, John mentioned this earlier, and 21

Daniel mentioned it at the outset, whether you file 22

comments as individual companies, or if ASRAC has 23

overall recommendations that they'd like to provide to 24

the Department. 25

57


You've had the firsthand experience of some 1

of the negotiated rulemakings, their impacts, how they 2

work, how those committees -- so, I think we'd be 3

interested in those types of thoughts as well. Just 4

lastly, overarching, I think we'd be interested in 5

ASRAC's -- wherever we can help identify opportunities 6

to guide the Appliance Standards Program while being 7

mindful of the new administration's priorities, and 8

the fact that we are still committed to meeting our 9

statutory deadlines. 10

So with that, I think it's probably a good 11

time to take a break, and then reconvene maybe with 12

some more specific agenda items, if Andrew has them, 13

for a discussion, if we can? 14

MR. CYMBALSKY: Great idea. So let's -- I 15

know we have lunch on the schedule too, but let's take 16

a quick ten-minute break. So, it's 11:30 now. Let's 17

reconvene at 11:40, please. 18

(Whereupon, a short recess was taken.) 19

MR. CYMBALSKY: Okay, so let's get started 20

back up here. Okay, so we ended the last portion of 21

our discussion on DOE's perspective on schedules, 22

rulemakings, et cetera, et cetera. One thing we've 23

talked about the regulatory agenda that is public on 24

OIRA's website, and you know, regardless of the way 25

58


the rule fits in the active or long-term, or whatever 1

we're calling them there, I think what this group, one 2

homework assignment, I think, for this group, could be 3

to just look at all of those rules that are on the reg 4

agenda, regardless of which bucket they're in, and the 5

notion of which ones might be able to be negotiated. 6

I think it would be a good homework 7

assignment for this group to maybe, each of us flag 8

which ones we think are ripe for that, just for a 9

piece of information that DOE could have in its back 10

pocket. Does that sound reasonable? 11

FEMALE VOICE: Yeah. 12

MR. deLASKI: This is Andrew, John. It does 13

sound reasonable. I think it is a good way to help 14

the committees do some agenda setting. What I would 15

suggest is that, you know, we put it on an agenda item 16

for a subsequent meeting that doesn't happen too long 17

from now. I don't know if it's two months out, three 18

months out, but at the end I assume we'll talk about 19

scheduling the next meeting, and as part of that, you 20

know, we then can talk to folks in our respective 21

communities, the various trade associations can go 22

back to their members and the folks who are industries 23

can talk to their colleagues in other companies and 24

get input from a much broader set of interests to make 25

59


sure that we're, you know, that we're getting a good 1

set of recommendations that are robust, you know, 2

covering that whole gamut of things that the agency is 3

supposed to be working on. 4

But I would say, you know, come back to it 5

in the not too distance future, perhaps, to help 6

provide guidance, our input as a Department. I know 7

we'll be providing input on the next iteration of the 8

regulatory agenda not too long from now. 9

MR. CYMBALSKY: Yeah, that's true. So the 10

reg agenda comes out twice a year, traditionally 11

around Memorial Day and Labor Day, as I recall, so as 12

Andrew said, I think if the data call did not go out 13

already, it will soon, to the agencies across the 14

government, you know, in support of the new reg 15

agenda. So, I agree with Andrew. We should meet 16

again probably in the spring. If it's not in person, 17

we could do it over the phone with a webinar, so to 18

cut down on travel if that's an issue for folks, but 19

certainly I would say April would be a good target 20

month for that. 21

MR. deLASKI: Jenn. 22

MS. CLEARY: Jenn Cleary. I agree with what 23

you said, Andrew, and I think it really should be part 24

of a bigger effort on a work plan. I mean, I think 25

60


that we all try to guess where you're headed and we 1

try to use the regulatory agenda as a guide, but 2

history hasn't really demonstrated that to be the best 3

guide, and so I think, you know, there's more than 4

just, here's, you know, I think the sort of schedule 5

that we talked about, you know, at our last meeting 6

was really a list of the statutory deadlines for test 7

procedures and standards, and I think that this 8

committee, and I can't speak on behalf of everyone, 9

but my impression from what we were really looking for 10

was a real work plan that we could help you with. 11

So, you know, can we figure out which test 12

procedures does the Department think are ripe for 13

change, and what changes might be necessary? What 14

data might be necessary? How long does it take to get 15

that? We need to, I think, know that information, the 16

Department needs to know that information, so that you 17

can meet the statutory deadline. So, it sounds to me 18

like no one around this table objects to meeting those 19

statutory deadlines. 20

Everyone agrees that's important. The 21

Department is committed to it. But I'd really like to 22

see how you're planning to do that, and I think that 23

we could all help you better achieve those goals by 24

identifying which rules might be ripe for negotiation 25

61


if we understood what that plan was. Until we 1

understand that, I'm just not really sure how truly 2

helpful we can be, other than going back to our 3

organizations and saying what we might be willing to 4

negotiate, but that doesn't really help the Department 5

in its full work plan and the overall picture and 6

going back to what Sofie was recommending about 7

looking at, you know, how can the Department satisfy 8

its two-for-one obligations and how does that, you 9

know, if at all, fit into this picture as well. 10

So, you know, I just hope that if we flag 11

anything for negotiation, it's part of a bigger 12

picture on a work plan. 13

MR. CYMBALSKY: No, and I agree. I think 14

it's a chicken and egg kind of thing, right? So, is 15

this the egg or the chicken? And I think to help the 16

senior leadership here at DOE make some of those 17

decisions, I think having this piece of information 18

from ASRAC would be very helpful in the bigger scheme 19

of planning, so I think that's where I'm coming from, 20

anyway. 21

MR. WINNINGHAM: This is Dave with Lennox. 22

And I think kind of as a follow-up to Andrew's 23

suggestion to compile a list of the open issues from 24

prior ASRAC term sheets and from both the DOE 25

62


perspective and maybe somewhat of a homework 1

assignment to the members who may have some interest 2

in some of those open actions to be able to provide a 3

status update. 4

MR. deLASKI: Yeah -- this is Andrew. That 5

makes sense. You know, I'd like to see us have a 6

plan, make sure there are plans in place, to address 7

each of those open items, right, and many of them, I 8

know we discussed yesterday, one of the items for the 9

process rule discussion was the rule of industry test 10

methods, and even in the absence of an ASRAC 11

negotiation, you know, there can be forward progress 12

on test methods that we all have agreed in cases need 13

to be updated. 14

So, the commercial rooftop one is, you know, 15

front and center as an example where there's a prior 16

commitment, and there are others. You know, I don't 17

have a ready list. 18

MS. ARMSTRONG: I could come up with a list 19

for everyone. 20

MR. deLASKI: Ashley's got a list, and I 21

think we all know -- the legal deadlines are public 22

knowledge, but with the seven-year review requirement, 23

you know, there has to be a look. In some cases, 24

there's no need for change, but there are, you know, 25

63


there are a number of parts out there that I think 1

it's well-known that there could be -- there's need 2

for significant improvements to have more 3

representative test methods. 4

Not saying there aren't some really knotty 5

issues, and I think clothes dryers is one where we 6

know there are some knotty issues to deal with, but 7

you know, it would be good to be able to have some 8

progress on the clothes dryer test method. 9

MS. CLEARY: For the record, we don't see 10

any knotty issues that need to be dealt with. This is 11

Jenn from AHAM. 12

(Laughter.) 13

MR. deLASKI: So there's disagreement even 14

in the knottiness of the issues. 15

(Laughter.) 16

MR. deLASKI: That suggests, you know, the 17

need for some further discussion to me. So, I would, 18

you know, it strikes me that test methods, back to 19

Diane's point, is an area where there could be some 20

nice, some fruitful discussion about, how do you make 21

forward progress, which may or may not lead to an 22

ASRAC working group, right, but which this committee 23

can provide some guidance on, and can dovetail with 24

commitments under the executive order. 25

64


MR. CYMBALSKY: Noah? 1

MR. HOROWITZ: Hopefully this won't be a 2

tangent. I just want to shine a finer point on the 3

test methods. I think we all agree we should have 4

updated and sound test methods. I want to put a 5

little caution, though, that while it's good to have 6

work done by trade associations on test methods, we 7

shouldn't by default be rubber stamping them. They 8

get it 70 to 100 percent right, depending on the test 9

method, and it should be the initial starting point, 10

but there's often the ability, they might have might 11

have missed one thing or not gotten one part right, so 12

we should encourage those activities, but don't 13

necessarily set up a path that we have to adopt them. 14

Thanks. 15

MR. WOLF: This is Mike. I have a question 16

on that. I mean, Ashley, you kind of, I think, 17

alluded to that in your comments, about the 18

opportunity for DOE to work with the trade 19

associations, and again, Andrew, cut me off, because 20

I've got things on here specific to fans, again, we 21

would, you know, the fan industry would welcome that 22

input from DOE. 23

We got to a term sheet. In the absence of 24

that term sheet, the trade association is continuing 25

65


work on that front, and you know, I'd say probably, 1

and I'm exaggerating some, but half our time is spent, 2

oh, what does DOE want? And then I always ask, or 3

Ashley would say, what do we want? 4

(Laughter.) 5

MR. WOLF: But anyway, you see my point. I 6

mean, you know, we know that this thing is out there, 7

I believe probably the test procedure, there's a draft 8

somewhere in the halls of DOE, but if we could get 9

that on the record somehow, man, that would be so 10

helpful, and then to your point, Noah, the industry's 11

not flying blind here. So that's my ask on that 12

particular topic. 13

MS. ARMSTRONG: Thanks for that ask. 14

(Laughter.) 15

MS. ARMSTRONG: This is Ashley from the 16

Department. So, in Ashley's ideal world, test 17

procedure world, if there is an industry test 18

procedure out there, whether it's one we currently 19

incorporate by reference or it's one we're considering 20

incorporating by reference, I think it would be really 21

good, in an ideal world, for that committee to open 22

up, open up to whomever wants to participate in the 23

committee, and let the Department as well, and the 24

Department can provide its list of issues, others can 25

66


provide their list of issues, industry can provide 1

their list of issues, and we work on it together 2

jointly, as a technical committee, to move it forward. 3

Certainly, some committees have worked that 4

way in the past. Others haven't. I will say with 5

caution, though, there needs to be some sense of time 6

lines and urgencies. There have been some committees 7

I'm still on that we're ten years in and still going. 8

Going strong, but still going. That doesn't really 9

work for the Department in terms of meeting its 10

statutory deadlines, so hopefully, in my ideal world, 11

that opening would be well in advance of any statutory 12

look-back by the Department, and I'm not by any means 13

circumventing the rulemaking notice and comment 14

process by saying we would rubber stamp it, but I am 15

saying that hopefully at the end of that inclusive 16

process, that it would be a product that we could all 17

sit around at the table and agree addressed a variety 18

of stakeholders' open issues, including the 19

Department's. 20

So that's my ideal world, and the question 21

becomes, how do we make that a reality? Chairman? 22

(Laughter.) 23

MR. deLASKI: Well, what strikes me is, you 24

know, having -- when industry initiates the -- 25

67


industry, you know, takes the initiative on its own 1

test methods, typically, but to have the Department 2

involved in that process in a way that is interactive, 3

right -- I heard a complaint yesterday from some folks 4

that when the Department just shows up and sits there, 5

that's not any good either, right, and that can 6

sometimes be a constraint, you, sometimes, you have 7

your own constraints that aren't necessarily 8

understood well by other folks who are part of that 9

committee, so if the agency had the directive to go 10

actively involve -- be involved in more industry 11

processes, the guidance from management to be -- go -- 12

so that at the end of the day, you're closer to more 13

of Noah's 100 percent situation where it actually 14

meets the regulatory needs of the agency, which aren't 15

always well-understood, frankly, by the folks who are 16

writing these test methods, right, because they're not 17

-- they're maybe -- they aren't used to writing 18

regulatory test methods, right? 19

They're used to writing things that are 20

voluntary, perhaps, in nature, not the basis for a 21

program that has an enforcement branch, right? So, 22

there's a leap there, and only by the Department being 23

actively engaged in that can you help to make sure 24

that you have the kind of specificity, repeatability, 25

68


that it meets the standards, meets the requirements of 1

what is a regulatory test method. But I think if -- 2

it sounds like you're already participating in a 3

number of things, you know, and if there's a will to 4

participate in more and an openness on the part of 5

industry groups that, you know, and also to include 6

groups like Noah's and Kristen's and other, you know, 7

non-industry participants, I think that would be a way 8

to make progress on the test methods, but I think you 9

kind of need to hear back -- back to the chicken and 10

egg problem that you guys have been talking about. 11

Like, who's going to say first what they're 12

willing to work on, right? You're willing to say, oh, 13

I don't want to work on this, but okay, what are you 14

willing to work on? Where do you see the need for 15

work to happen? We have to get beyond rooftop air 16

conditioners. We got one. And how do we get the next 17

-- we got fans, which is done, I think. Mike? I 18

mean, it's not -- what's the next step on -- what 19

would you see as the next step on fans? What would 20

you recommend as the next step for a fans test? 21

MR. WOLF: For DOE, now you're talking, or 22

are you asking me where we're at in the industry 23

process? 24

MR. deLASKI: Where are we at in the 25

69


industry process? 1

MR. WOLF: Well, we have the test procedure, 2

we think, done. I mean, it's done to the level of -- 3

MS. ARMSTRONG: Can I clarify? 4

MR. WOLF: Yup, go ahead. 5

MR. ARMSTRONG: You have the AMCA version of 6

the test procedure. 7

MR. WOLF: I was just going to say that if 8

you'd be patient but you -- 9

(Laughter.) 10

MS. ARMSTRONG: -- for the record you don't 11

have the draft DOE document. 12

MR. WOLF: We have, you know, our trade 13

association verison done that we think is done to the 14

level, the requirements of the trade association 15

certified ratings program, but the $10 million 16

question that we don't know is, would that meet the 17

requirements of, you know, federal regulation? We'd 18

like it to, because we don't want to have to come back 19

and redo something in a few years, and that's what we 20

fear is going to happen. 21

So the ask, I guess, would be, you know, 22

maybe a direct involvement, or to provide 23

recommendations on what we should add to that -- and 24

I'm not sure I'm using the terms right -- test 25

70


procedure. I mean, it's one thing to test a fan. We, 1

you know, there was agreement on the term sheet on 2

that. That wasn't a big debate in terms of the test 3

procedure, but in terms of requirements for compliance 4

with the regulation, is a whole other element, and to 5

be more specific on it, Andrew, for you, the test 6

procedure is done. 7

What AMCA's doing now is we're working on 8

what we call our Certified Ratings Program, so 9

basically, the enforcement piece of enforcing the 10

standard for the members. And the AMCA Certified 11

Ratings Program, I guess I would put that as 12

complementary or parallel to the DOE's enforcement 13

piece of the regulation, but Ashley's turning her nose 14

up at me, so I'm probably using the wrong terms here. 15

So, that's where we need the help. How do 16

we make sure that whatever we do from an enforcement 17

standpoint -- because you mentioned it, and I've 18

brought this up in our trade association meetings, and 19

I've been told, Mike, you know, you don't understand. 20

This is a voluntary program. If we do these things, 21

nobody's going to want to volunteer to certify their 22

programs and what good is it then if nobody, you know, 23

registers or signs up to certify their products? 24

Well, so we're kind of in a chicken/egg 25

71


position there with regard to where we are, but we're 1

pushing forward, and you know, I'm hoping we're going 2

to have something in the next month or so, so that at 3

least we can then, you know, have something that we 4

can show the California Energy Commission, that hey, 5

here's a proposal to possibly model your regulation 6

on. 7

So anyway, Ashley, do you want to add 8

anything more to that, or -- 9

MS. ARMSTRONG: I'll just translate a bit. 10

This is Ashley. So, in DOE speak, Mike is asking for 11

how do you take the actual test method for testing a 12

fan and then overlay how do you get the actual, what 13

we call represented values, what you show to the 14

marketplace, for a given basic model of fan, and then 15

to that, a fan platform or a fan line, how do you 16

build your different bubbles, and what does that all 17

look like? How does it bring it all together? 18

I won't call it enforcement, but this is 19

basically the representation you are using to the 20

marketplace, perhaps one day to California and others. 21

We talked about some of that as part of the 22

negotiation. Not all of it is in the term sheet, so 23

that's where Mike is seeking, potentially, some input. 24

MR. WOLF: Mike Wolf, Greenheck, again. And 25

72


then one additional item is, during the clients -- or 1

I call it check test, but you now, what do you call it 2

when you pull something off the market and do a test 3

on it? 4

MS. ARMSTRONG: Good enough. 5

MR. WOLF: Good enough? Okay. You don't 6

have to translate that for me? 7

MS. ARMSTRONG: Close enough. 8

MR. WOLF: Okay. Thank you. 9

MS. ARMSTRONG: So, from the Department's 10

perspective, I think you can get a commitment to the 11

Department participating, as so invited, on industry 12

committees. And I do mean that with -- it may be 13

myself sometimes. It may be a different person from 14

the Department at the staff level. It may be some of 15

our more technical consultants. It may be one of our 16

consultants from an actual lab. I'm not sure. 17

Sometimes we've also supplemented with 18

actual testing as needed, whether that be in a DOE 19

test facility or at a third party facility, depending 20

on what's needed and what that looks like. Sometimes 21

we've teamed up with manufacturers to test in their 22

own facility or run different runs to investigate 23

that. Certainly I think you can get a Department 24

commitment that we want are willing to work with you 25

73


at that level. Now, can I tell you -- outside of a 1

rulemaking process, I can't say, you know, here's a 2

draft test procedure. I can't give you a draft 3

deliberative document that would be internal to the 4

Department, but I think you can get -- we can talk 5

about technical issues. 6

We can have some discussion about what those 7

look like, what is needed, what different data -- I 8

think we can get there. Let's put it that way. So, 9

to the extent we are invited, I think you're hearing a 10

Department-level commitment to, we are willing to step 11

up. 12

MR. GATTO: Thanks. Dave Gatto, 13

Westinghouse. And Michael, I think what you were 14

looking for is surveillance testing, is probably the 15

DOE speak, although if it's a voluntary program, I 16

think probably it's more of whatever CEC was looking 17

at, might be what you were shooting for. I think for 18

us, the industry tries for 100 percent. I think Noah 19

knows that, but sometimes what industry is trying to 20

glean from testing isn't necessarily completely 21

aligned with what DOE's looking for if it's a covered 22

product, and so that's something that, for legacy 23

products, I think, for the most part, DOE and industry 24

are on the same page about what does DOE need to know. 25

74


I think what would be helpful, Ashley, so 1

maybe that's the ask, is that if there are, 2

particularly for legacy products -- I'm just thinking 3

about, you know, linear fluorescent -- if there are 4

things in the current test procedure, you know, the 5

IES-LM9, I think it is or -- it would be very helpful, 6

not for me because I'm not on that committee, but for 7

me so I can share it with Alex, who is sitting behind 8

me and then we can get that into the NEMA group, it 9

would be helpful to know that this is the concern you 10

have, because otherwise what happens is, you take a 11

look at the test procedure, you might dictate, you 12

know, LM-79, you only want one of the two options that 13

the LM has as being the test equipment used. 14

So, can't use a Goniophotometer. Well, 15

speed to market, a Goniophotometer is much faster, 16

it's less expensive to test in. So, understanding 17

what your concerns were, because while I think we go 18

for 100 percent, Noah, one of the things from an 19

industry perspective I would share is that there is a 20

burden to all of this, that it either adds cost to the 21

consumer or it slows innovation, and when we're 22

talking about covered products, innovation, -- we're 23

in serial rulemaking -- we know we're going to 24

potentially be asked to take another step. 25

75


So, the fact that we've got products coming 1

out constantly at a cost that doesn't have all this 2

burden, allows us to have a bigger portfolio to pull 3

from when you guys start the rulemaking process. So 4

if we know in advance, hey, listen, this is really 5

where DOE's concerned -- but what I would say is that 6

I think 100 percent, that's the goal, but if it's 99 7

percent and the difference is a huge burden on the 8

testing cost, I think you've been pretty good about 9

this but I think that a Goniophotometer is probably 10

the one where we would have rather been in more 11

dialogue about that difference, because I don't, at 12

least just for me personally, and I'm not the 13

technical person there, but I'm very familiar with the 14

different test data I have, old versus new test 15

procedure -- the variation is very small. 16

So it could have been something like you've 17

done with confidence level where you just say, you can 18

do that, but here's how you would represent that 19

value, and that would have made things easier on 20

industry. We could have used existing test data, 21

which eliminates retesting products. In the LED 22

space, we're launching new products sometimes weekly, 23

so the longer it takes us to do that or the more 24

expensive it is, the more impact it has on the amount 25

76


of efficiency we can bring to the table. 1

MR. deLASKI: Anything else on test methods? 2

MS. JAKOBS: So, this is Diane from Rheem, 3

and I think there is another aspect to the test 4

procedure. If you don't run test procedures, you 5

might not have thought that really your -- there's a 6

purpose behind how a test procedure is developed, and 7

I've been doing this for a long time, and it seemed 8

like originally, the idea was more, in the 9

marketplace, you could compare two products from two 10

different manufacturers and have a level playing 11

field, a way to compare them, but over time, these 12

test metrics that were developed for one purpose are 13

being repurposed to predict how much energy is being 14

consumed by all of us as a nation, and I was looking 15

at, you know, our input for the furnace AFUE, and we 16

take, I think it's like five or six temperatures and a 17

CO2 reading, and when people tell me, well, you know, 18

the AFUE doesn't predict my energy consumption at my 19

home, it's like, well, of course not. How could it? 20

You know, it's not the intention. 21

So I think we have to be mindful of what the 22

purpose is for the test procedure, what we're trying 23

to learn from the test procedure from the metrics we 24

develop. Some of the old metrics maybe should be 25

77


retired and some new ones should stand in their place, 1

but I think that's one area that we need more work. 2

MR. deLASKI: Okay, so I would definitely 3

invite the committee members to think about what are, 4

again, what are the ones, in addition to rooftop air 5

conditioners and fans where there's already work 6

underway, you know, where that would make sense, and 7

where there's commitment from stakeholders to spend 8

time and effort on those, and we should come back to 9

that in a future meeting. 10

MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah, and I'll come back to 11

compiling a full list of all those we currently 12

incorporate by reference. 13

MR. deLASKI: Mm-hmm. 14

MS. ARMSTRONG: There will be upwards of 40 15

or 50 of them -- 16

MR. deLASKI: Mm-hmm. 17

MS. ARMSTRONG: -- identified, just so that 18

ASRAC is aware of the totality of what we incorporate 19

by reference, either in whole or in part currently for 20

consideration, because as we move through review 21

cycles, either new versions of those or modified 22

versions of those are what we start with, along with 23

the list, full list of open issues and/or questions 24

we've gotten from stakeholders or labs or 25

78


manufacturers or -- and we look at the old docket to 1

see what else was brought up then. So certainly, we 2

can help with that information. 3

MR. deLASKI: So I want to just to come back 4

to the point Sofie raised around the executive order, 5

two for one order, because it does strike me that, you 6

know, some of these are things that are streamlining 7

in nature, that are improving information in nature, 8

and I'm wondering, Sofie, do you have other -- when 9

you raised that, did you have particular other ideas 10

in mind as to what types -- what are the kind of 11

things that you're thinking of that might help the 12

agency to meet the obligations under the EO? 13

MS. MILLER: I think the focus on test 14

procedures has been so far productive and could be an 15

area where there could be a lot more productivity, 16

especially because there are statutory limitations, 17

which of course are going to be primary here, so you 18

can't alter standards that have already been set in 19

certain directions, which limits the types of 20

regulatory burden reduction you can do. 21

So a focus on test procedures could be very 22

good, and one thing to keep in mind, too, since some 23

of you are so involved in some of the very nitty 24

gritty aspects for very particular rules, one thing to 25

79


think about too is that -- or not -- some of the 1

guidance that OMB has implemented on complying with 2

these executive orders have specified that some of the 3

outs, as they've been calling them, don't necessarily 4

always have to be significant rules or economically 5

significant rules. They could be smaller rules. They 6

could even be guidance, under certain circumstances, 7

so that's something to think about as well. 8

And if you're looking at -- well, maybe I'll 9

stop there. So, there are a variety of different ways 10

to be looking at what your options are, and it's not 11

just rule rescissions or something like that. It can 12

be modifying a rule to be reducing burdens, including 13

paperwork burdens or reporting burdens or testing 14

burdens, for example, like Diane has been mentioning, 15

and I think that could be really productive to think 16

about too, how those specific areas may overlap with 17

some areas which are of interest to, for the trade 18

associations, to some of your members, or to the 19

industries, to some of your production line, and for 20

the rest of us too, it's time to put on our thinking 21

caps. 22

I think my own personal homework assignment 23

is to go back to my desk and see if there are any 24

particular areas that stand out to me as well. 25

80


MS. JAKOBS: Could I just add one more 1

thing? This is Diane. So, in water heating, we have 2

a new test procedure, and it has been a huge burden, 3

huge learning for everyone involved, but the old test 4

procedure was repeatable, and the new test procedure 5

represents the consumption in a home more accurately, 6

hopefully, and there's a conflict there. If you want, 7

I mean, just looking how I do stuff at my home 8

compared to my sister doing stuff at her home, I'm 9

sure there's a wide variation, so to try to predict 10

how people interact with their appliances is a very 11

complicated, and could be a huge burden for 12

manufacturers who, in the end, are the ones who have 13

to conduct those tests, and the consumers are the ones 14

who pay for them, and in my experience, most people I 15

know have no clue what those metrics are or what they 16

mean, and you know, is it even the right thing to do? 17

Maybe going back to just, I want to compare 18

this item to that item, and how do we compare them, 19

maybe that's the purpose for the test procedures, but, 20

so, I mean, as I'm advocating for new test procedures 21

or developing or -- it's a huge burden on everyone. I 22

know Ashley worked really hard, and the thing about 23

the -- crosswalk? Crosswalks, oh, my God. So, 24

anyway, there are so many people who are affected by 25

81


all these rules, and it's just work that should be 1

done carefully and thoughtfully. 2

MR. deLASKI: Just to follow up, Sofie, you 3

said there some of the outs. I don't know what you 4

meant by that. Could you explain? 5

MS. MILLER: Yeah, forgive me. I hang out 6

with a lot of regulatory nerds. And, you're welcome. 7

Here I'm the regulatory nerd. So let me define. So, 8

because it's a -- the two-for-one executive order had 9

to do with, for every new rule that met certain 10

requirements, you have to identify two regulatory 11

actions as deregulatory in some way or reducing 12

burdens, and those tend to be referred to as the outs. 13

So you have the ins, which are the rules 14

that qualify under the executive order for needing 15

offsets, and then the outs are essentially the offsets 16

that the Department or OMB or someone else identifies 17

as being able to come back to a net base. One thing 18

to keep in mind as well is that DOE and all agencies 19

do have regulatory cost budgets, essentially, for how 20

much they can impose in regulatory burdens for this 21

fiscal year, and DOE's is negative, which means that 22

there is a lot of work that does need to be done in 23

this area, so perhaps we can find something 24

constructive. 25

82


I believe DOE's budget is something to the 1

order of negative $1.1 billion, but that might be in 2

total cost rather than in annual. So that's something 3

to think about as well. 4

MR. WOLF: Sofie, I'm sorry. I'm kind of 5

slow. Can you -- this is Mike Wolf, Greenheck. Can 6

you explain the negative cost thing again? 7

MS. MILLER: Yeah. And I'm happy to talk 8

about this too when people's stomachs aren't growling 9

for lunch, but briefly, I think the way to think about 10

it is, part of the executive order isn't just, you get 11

a certain number of rules that are finalized, and that 12

means that you have to identify additional rules to go 13

out. It's not just the two-for-one. There's also a 14

cost component, and so all of the cost from the new 15

rules need to be offset by reductions in regulatory 16

burdens from rules you've identified. 17

MR. WOLF: Okay. I've got it. 18

MS. MILLER: And that would -- yeah, that 19

would be a net-zero base, but for those of you who 20

haven't yet got it for this fiscal year, DOE has a 21

below zero base that it needs to hit in terms of 22

offsets, so it needs to have more offsets than 23

additional regulatory burdens in this fiscal year. 24

MR. CYMBALSKY: This is John from DOE. I'll 25

83


just add that Sofie's right that -- but it's a DOE-1

wide. There are other regulations out of DOE that are 2

not just this program. So, that negative number might 3

not be coming from here. Just -- I'm not sure where 4

it's coming from but it might not be here. 5

(Laughter.) 6

MR. GATTO: It's Dave Gatto. So, I was 7

going to ask that question, John, anyway, because, 8

Sofie, because the way the executive order is written, 9

it's, when not prohibited by law, and most of the 10

rulemaking activity that, at least for our product 11

lines, are in statute. So, I do like the idea, and 12

maybe that's worth discussion this afternoon or maybe 13

at the next meeting, an agenda item of, are there 14

opportunities to reduce burden. 15

I think the thing I would say, and it'll 16

sound weird from a manufacturer that, well, why would 17

you want to have a reporting burden, what I think it's 18

important for non-industry members to understand is 19

that, if we're not reporting to DOE, we may, similar 20

to the national standards conversation, we may then in 21

fact be reporting different, or even the same data in 22

different formats, to other stakeholders, particularly 23

at the state level. 24

And so we want the information to be 25

84


available having a single -- there's actually, there 1

is a rulemaking going on there that I'll ask Ashley 2

about offline and I don't think it's part of ASRAC -- 3

but having the reported data gathered in a single 4

place, whether that's DOE or, you know, it's EPA in 5

some cases for us on mercury-containing products, that 6

actually satisfies the reporting requirements of other 7

agencies or state-level agencies, where a regulatory 8

guidance document to reduce the burden at the national 9

level would actually greatly increase burden on 10

manufacturers. 11

So, this is something that we've been in 12

dialogue with -- on the industry side. There's a 13

little bit of a "careful what you wish for." We're 14

for good, solid regulations. We have been all along. 15

What we're not for is having to duplicate the same 16

work over and over again when we could be doing other 17

stuff. 18

MS. CLEARY: Jenn Cleary with AHAM. So, 19

Sofie, you mentioned that, like, test procedures and 20

guidances could be taken into account as deregulatory 21

actions. Is that the Department's view as well, even 22

though they're not significant? 23

MR. CYMBALSKY: Right, so, we've done -- 24

this is John from DOE. We've done some preliminary 25

85


work on some test procedures. As Ashley said, we've 1

been working all the while, and some of these updates 2

to test procedures are actually burden-reducing, 3

right, because you can save time in the test, right? 4

So the current test maybe takes an hour, and what we 5

propose or go final with takes a half an hour, and if 6

you do all the math, it reduces burden. So that could 7

be a deregulatory or a cost-reducing action. 8

MS. CLEARY: Jenn Cleary again. So that 9

just kind of goes, then, like, all into a pool of what 10

you have to meet, and you can reconcile it later? 11

MS. ARMSTRONG: Agency-wide. 12

MS. CLEARY: Right. 13

MR. CYMBALSKY: Yeah, agency-wide. So it's 14

part of the calculus that Sofie was laying out there. 15

MS. CLEARY: Okay. Thank you. 16

MR. deLASKI: Okay, just a couple other 17

thoughts on this. This is Andrew again. So, one is, 18

just so -- I think it's -- I think we all understand 19

-- I think this is clear, but the benefits of the 20

rules aren't counted in this calculation. 21

MS. MILLER: No, they're not, and in the OMB 22

guidance, they did specifically look at energy 23

efficiency savings for consumers and manufacturer -- 24

or for commercial entities as well, and did 25

86


specifically say that the way that the benefits or 1

costs had been treated previously by that agency in 2

similar rules was how they would be treated in the 3

future, so because DOE counts energy savings as a 4

benefit rather than a negative cost, for example, they 5

will not be counted as cost reductions in future rules 6

because they have been previously treated as benefits. 7

MR. deLASKI: Okay. As we all know, I mean, 8

the statute requires that standards are cost-effective 9

for the people who buy and use the appliances, and all 10

the appliance standards that the agency has ever 11

promulgated are cost-effective for the consumers and 12

yield net benefits for the consumers, you know, 13

typically, in the billions of dollars. That said, 14

that's not the test that's being applied, right? 15

The question I have is, we also heard 16

earlier from a couple of the industry folks on ASRAC 17

that one of the -- that they faced potentially 18

significant burdens from state regulation, and that by 19

having federal regulation, they avoid what could be 20

much higher costs from state-by-state regulation, in 21

their estimation. Charlie gave us a particularly 22

vivid image of that description of a historical 23

experience. 24

Do we have any sense of how that fits into 25

87


these discussions at the current -- under the 1

executive order? Has that been addressed in any sense 2

that you know of? 3

MS. MILLER: My understanding is that, 4

because those would be, then, costs that are incurred 5

as a result of state action rather than federal, that 6

would not fall under the umbrella of what needs to be 7

counted. I can double-check with that on the 8

guidance, but I do not believe that the federal 9

government will take into account costs that states 10

oppose in lieu of costs that the government is 11

imposing, if that makes sense. 12

MR. deLASKI: Well, I don't think it does 13

make sense, but it's what we're doing. 14

(Laughter.) 15

MS. MILLER: Well, I guess that's all we can 16

ask for, huh? 17

MR. deLASKI: I mean, it's the box. They've 18

drawn the box rather narrowly in that sense, right? 19

They've drawn the box around the costs of complying 20

with the regulation at the agency. They've left out 21

the benefits of the regulation and they've left out 22

impacts at the state level. That's the way the box is 23

drawn, it sounds like. I mean, I don't -- it's 24

something I don't follow that closely, so is that an 25

88


accurate way to put it? 1

MS. MILLER: I think the way -- so, to an 2

extent, yes, just because you have to define costs 3

very carefully, otherwise everything counts as a 4

negative cost, which is a problem that you often run 5

into in benefit-cost analysis. You have to very 6

clearly define what fits into those buckets, and that 7

is something that I think OMB has tried to do. One 8

thing that we should keep in mind is that the 9

deregulatory actions or actions to reduce burdens also 10

do have to go through -- well, I guess depending on 11

how significant they are, but they should be passing a 12

benefit-cost test of their own. 13

So if you're removing some restriction, 14

there should be greater benefits from removing it than 15

there are, for example, disbenefits to people because 16

there is no longer a protection, if that makes sense. 17

So in that way, benefits still does come into play, 18

but it's in a different way and it's not in the rules 19

themselves that you're imposing, the new ins for the 20

in and outs that we're looking at. Does that clarify 21

at all or does that complicate? 22

MR. deLASKI: I guess what I would -- this 23

helps some, I think, you know, because it helps us, 24

you know, help think about how we can help to be able 25

89


to move -- to be able to come up with the actions that 1

would enable the agency to meet the executive order's 2

obligations. You know, to the extent that we have 3

ideas about things that could help meet those 4

obligations, I think it would be helpful to discuss 5

them in the committee, and that people should put 6

their thinking caps on and, you know, what are the 7

additional things, and Sofie, since you've spent time 8

thinking about this, if you've got ideas, you know, 9

please bring them back at the next meeting. 10

Are there other thoughts on this or 11

questions about this topic? Noah? 12

MR. HOROWITZ: Noah with NRDC. I think we 13

need to not lose track of the fact that the two-for-14

one rule only -- does not apply to things that are 15

required by statute, and most of the standards and 16

test methods we're talking about have a calendar and a 17

requirement, so let's not get too distracted by that, 18

and -- 19

MS. MILLER: That's actually not quite the 20

case. That has to do -- there are a number of 21

different exemptions, and those rules that are 22

strictly exempted from the requirements are those that 23

have to do with, for example, national security, but 24

then there is a looser set of exemptions for rules 25

90


that have statutory deadlines, and for those, the 1

agencies are still required to identify offsets, but 2

may do so at a later time because they are required to 3

meet certain deadlines within the statute. 4

So some of these may be subject to more of 5

those requirements than some people seem to think, 6

based on OMB's supplemental guidance, which I think 7

was released in April. 8

MR. HOROWITZ: Okay, but -- 9

MS. ARMSTRONG: I am going to chime in at 10

this point and just say that the Department's in 11

litigation over that issue, and the Department's 12

position and/or comment on this, we're not commenting 13

on pending litigation. So, while Sofie's presenting 14

her view and you're presenting your view, at this 15

point, the Department's view, there is no comment from 16

the Department. 17

MR. HOROWITZ: Understood, and where I was 18

going to go on this is, I think, as Andrew cued up the 19

session was, which products might it make sense for us 20

to do some prioritization that might be good 21

candidates for negotiated rulemaking, and I'm 22

encouraged by, let's try and do that, and doing it in 23

some sort of time frame that works, so we have time to 24

do the work, is the right thing to do, and again, the 25

91


clarity of, and if we are going to do that work, will 1

the Department be in a position to act upon it, and 2

that's an open question that I'm hoping after the 3

meeting you can provide more clarity. Thanks. 4

MR. deLASKI: Mike? 5

MR. WOLF: Mike Wolf, Greenheck. So, as I'm 6

listening to this dialogue, three things kind of go 7

through my head. First of all, I think, playing off 8

from Noah's comment here, I know, John, at one of the 9

previous meetings, you went through the list of 10

regulations that DOE has in place and is tracking and 11

so on and so forth. One thing I don't have a clear 12

understanding on is, which one of those regulations 13

are statutorily required, and which ones are not? 14

That would be a helpful thing for me to know and maybe 15

for others on this committee to know. 16

Number two, with regard to the cost 17

elimination, one of the things that, you know, I'm 18

sure all companies look at is that there's a cost of 19

not taking action a lot of times as well, and I think 20

what the potential we have here, and I don't know if 21

this committee can do anything about that, but I think 22

it could help the Department if we could, maybe, 23

possibly evaluate, okay, what happens if the 24

Department doesn't finish this rule? 25

92


For example, in my little world of fans, if 1

that rule is not finished, what is going to be the 2

added burden of all these states doing their own 3

regulation? You know what I mean? Because that's not 4

going to be a cost-positive thing to the industry or 5

the consumer if that happens. So, you know, maybe 6

that's something this committee can provide some 7

guidance on. 8

And the third one, Andrew, I don't know, you 9

know, you made the statement that there has not been a 10

rulemaking that has not saved energy, I think was your 11

statement -- 12

MR. deLASKI: Cost-effective for the 13

consumers, I said. 14

MR. WOLF: Yeah, and -- 15

MR. deLASKI: On average. 16

MR. WOLF: -- at least in the circles I run 17

in, there are those who take exception. They don't 18

necessarily buy into some of what -- 19

MR. deLASKI: Well -- 20

MR. WOLF: -- the analysis that's been done, 21

and I want to just finish that statement, I mean, and 22

I was going to come back to Diane's comment here a 23

minute ago with regard to, what is the purpose of the 24

metric? You know, she just mentioned this, I guess 25

93


it's a furnace metric. It doesn't necessarily show me 1

how much energy I'm going to save in my house. Well, 2

if it doesn't give me some indication of how I'm going 3

to save energy in my house, you know, is it the right 4

metric? 5

You know, maybe we need to look at these 6

metrics, as Diane was alluding to, and make sure that, 7

you know, these metrics will carry over into a useful 8

application in the marketplace as well, beyond just an 9

apples-to-apples comparison. And I know I'm getting 10

out there maybe beyond the scope of what this 11

committee's, you know, work task is, but I think 12

that's the real opportunity we have to save energy in 13

the future. 14

MR. deLASKI: Thanks, Mike, for that, and my 15

point was that the Department has to have shown -- 16

now, you might disagree with what the Department 17

showed, and then that speaks to that there was 18

something wrong with that particular analysis, right, 19

so -- 20

MR. WOLF: Yes, I agree. 21

MR. deLASKI: -- makes sense, someone 22

mentioned growling stomachs, so it would make sense to 23

go ahead and take a lunch break. I know there are 24

still some -- I think there are some topics from the 25

94


morning session regarding the recent DOE notices that 1

we really haven't finished on. We probably should 2

come back to those after lunch and then get to the 3

after-lunch agenda items. Do you guys want to stick 4

with the plan here which is on here to bring the lunch 5

back to the room? Is that the -- 6

MR. CYMBALSKY: Yeah, I don't know if we're 7

going to -- we can turn off the transcript now, 8

please. 9

(Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the meeting in 10

the above-entitled matter recessed, to reconvene at 11

1:30 p.m. this same day, Wednesday, January 10, 2018.) 12

// 13

// 14

// 15

// 16

// 17

// 18

// 19

// 20

// 21

// 22

// 23

// 24

// 25

95


A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N 1

(1:25 p.m.) 2

MR. CYMBALSKY: Okay. So we're going to 3

move along with the agenda. Welcome back. I hope 4

everyone had a nice lunch. Looks like we pretty much 5

stayed on to the 45-minute schedule. So without 6

further delay, we're going to move to our next topic, 7

which is new working group requests, and so the first 8

bullet there is to consider a working group to 9

negotiate energy conservation standards for variable 10

refrigerant flow air conditions and heat pumps. 11

And so we have two industry members who will 12

pitch this suggestion. So we have Rusty Tharp from 13

Daiken and Paul Doppler from Mitsubishi. 14

MR. THARP: Yeah, we're actually going to -- 15

we're going to tag-team here. We're going to start 16

with Jill Hootman. 17

MR. CYMBALSKY: Oh, we're going to start 18

with Jill Hootman from Trane. 19

MR. THARP: So I'm Rusty Tharp with, with 20

Daiken Goodman, and we're -- there's three of us 21

industry members here who want to pitch the proposal 22

for a VRF working group. Jill Hootman with Trane is 23

going to start off talking about the products. Paul 24

Doppel with Mitsubishi is going to talk about test 25

96


procedures, and then I'll wrap up talking about the 1

conservation standard proposal. 2

MR. CYMBALSKY: Okay. Jill? 3

MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah, Jill Hootman, Ingersoll 4

Rand, VRF is a relatively new HVAC product to North 5

America, but it has been extensively internationally 6

used since the 1980s. Today in the U.S., most comfort 7

air systems either distribute conditioned air directly 8

through duct work or they distribute conditioned fluid 9

to portions of the building which then may be 10

conditioned through smaller portions of the large 11

building. Those are commonly called chiller systems. 12

VRF is different because it distributes 13

refrigerant throughout the building. VRF, which 14

stands for variable refrigerant flow, comes with heat 15

recovery options, and they have the potential to take 16

heat from a warm portion of a building that needs 17

cooling and move it to a cooler portion of the 18

building that needs heating. So people commonly call 19

this simultaneous heating and cooling. The systems 20

have a high degree of flexibility for building 21

designers as well as the occupant. They feature 22

multiple indoor and multiple outdoor units that act -- 23

that those multiple outdoor units act as a single 24

outdoor unit and are matched with sophisticated 25

97


control systems for zoning. 1

There are water-cooled and air-cooled 2

systems. The majority are air-cooled, though. The 3

product applications, principally, are commercial in 4

nature, however, there is some overlap on the 5

residential systems. And they compete head-to-head 6

with the traditional ducted systems in the 7

marketplace, like I said before. And so common 8

metrics for both unitary ducted systems and variable 9

refrigerant flow systems are desired so that the 10

commercial building owner can understand their 11

relative benefits. 12

Paul? 13

MR. DOPPEL: Okay. And I'm going to talk 14

about the test procedures, and it's important, I 15

think, to go back and do a little history on the test 16

procedures. These systems were so unique when they 17

first came out that we had to do a test procedure 18

waiver through Department of Energy in order to come 19

up with a way, way to test these systems that would be 20

equivalent to unitary systems, rooftop systems. And 21

so one of the concepts, important concepts was to test 22

the combination because these units have millions and 23

millions of potential combinations of indoor units, 24

and some of the systems can have up to 50 indoor 25

98


units, so you can imagine the millions and millions of 1

combinations. 2

We came up with a tested combination with a 3

max of 12 indoor units. And so that helped us to 4

align with rooftop systems and other systems with 5

regard to common metrics that could be compared 6

between those, like COP, EER. We added a new metric 7

of simultaneous cooling and heating efficiency 8

because, as Jill mentioned, these systems do provide 9

heating and cooling at the same time. So we came up 10

with a, a test method in order to do that. IEER is 11

something else that we have always pushed from the 12

beginning for these systems because that's what makes 13

most sense for them. 14

Currently, the metric with, with DOE is EER, 15

and so we were a little bit late on the, the rooftop, 16

that had already started before us, so now, it's time 17

to get up-to-date with IEER. So there was a -- oh, 18

another thing that's very important is that the test 19

procedure includes all types of VRF. So it's air 20

source and water source, and it's also systems less 21

than 65,000 and systems greater than 65,000. So in a 22

way, we've combined three different test standards 23

into one test standard so that all the VRF are 24

included in one. 25

99


And that's important because none of the 1

other test procedures really had -- have a method for 2

testing up to, you know, 12 indoor units, and those -- 3

all of the different requirements that come along with 4

that. So the -- with the RFI that was put out for 5

commercial systems, VRF in particular, a, a updated 6

test procedure was included. So that was kind of 7

referred to as the 2016 version. Now, the group that 8

developed that test standard, and again, what we're 9

trying to do is to reduce burden on manufacturers and 10

also to kind of open up the testing method so that 11

consumers could understand better what was happening 12

in the testing, and they could have more confidence in 13

what those are. 14

So I mean those were the important reasons 15

that, that we did that. So the 2016 version needed to 16

be updated again, so we've again formed another team, 17

just like the other one, which included members from 18

the Department of Energy and also members from various 19

test -- independent test labs so that there's a good 20

communication. An important thing also to mention is 21

that an entirely different type of testing chamber had 22

to be developed to do the VRF testing. It's called a 23

quad chamber. 24

So instead of an indoor and outdoor section, 25

100


it consists of an outdoor section and then two indoor 1

sections to accommodate the simultaneous cooling and 2

heating testing. So -- and also, the -- because of 3

the concept, as Jill mentioned, you could have 4

multiple outdoor units acting as one outdoor unit. 5

That added more to the complexity of the testing, so 6

there's -- we've tried to make it as, as easy as 7

possible, and this, this version that we're working on 8

now, again, is to make this testing procedure 9

consistent with 210, 240 for the systems less than 65 10

and consistent with 340 through -60, which is large 11

rooftops above that. 12

And then the water source has also been -- 13

that has always been pretty consistent with those. So 14

that's where we are with those. 15

MR. THARP: Again, I'm -- again, I'm Rusty 16

Tharp with, with Goodman -- part of the Daiken Group, 17

and I tried to get Paul and Jill to lighten things up 18

a little bit and, and do a rap, but they told me I 19

have no rhythm so you'll have to, to live with it. 20

For reasons for having a negotiated rulemaking from an 21

energy -- from an energy conservation perspective, as 22

Paul indicated, today the metric is based on steady 23

state EER as regulated by the Department of Energy. 24

As anyone associated with energy efficiency 25

101


products can confirm, part load or seasonal metrics 1

are a much better predictor of annual energy 2

consumption. And while we wouldn't say that this is 3

the perfect metric to get to actual energy consumption 4

that would be used in the field because that varies so 5

much, depending on the application, the IEER metric is 6

a much better metric to use for the systems. It is 7

better for consumers; it's better for users to 8

basically have that comparison of the products itself. 9

A second reason we would like to have a 10

negotiated rulemaking on the ECS is because 11

competitive products, like the CUAC and CWAF or 12

commercial unitary air conditioners and commercial 13

unitary heat pumps have just switched also from EER to 14

IEER, effective January 1st of this year, as a result 15

of a totally tubular negotiated rulemaking that 16

happened in 2015. So because the VRF products are 17

also used in very similar applications, often times 18

the same building will compete for a CUAC or a VRF 19

system, we think it makes sense to have the same style 20

of metric for VRF as is used on, on a CUAC and not 21

CWAF but heat pumps. 22

It makes sense then for consumers to have 23

the same metric because it will be easier for them to 24

make a comparison between the products that they're 25

102


going to be putting into the building. So keeping the 1

existing steady state metric would likely cause 2

confusion for consumers who would be looking at an EER 3

metric for VRF and trying to compare that to IEER 4

that's on a commercial rooftop product. 5

A third reason we would like to have a 6

negotiated rulemaking for -- on VRF is because of 7

speed and regulatory burden. As an industry, we are 8

fully onboard with the statutory defined process of 9

ASHRAE 90.1, defining with the efficiency level for 10

these commercial products and then DOE adopting for 11

federally regulated products as we move along in time. 12

However, in this case, DOE is, is statutory required 13

to address water cooled VRF products and we think it's 14

in the best interest of lowering regulatory burden to 15

do all of the products at the same -- all VRF products 16

at the same time because as, as mentioned earlier, 17

rather than do multiple rulemakings, it's better to do 18

one rulemaking at once. 19

We think that with the negotiated rulemaking 20

process, several of us have participated in that in 21

commercial certification, in A/C heat pump and et 22

cetera. We find that the, the negotiated rulemaking 23

process provides a very good, as indicated yesterday 24

in the process rule discussion, that there's a lot of 25

103


good interaction that you have during the negotiated 1

rulemaking that you don't have in a notice in comment. 2

So we are a big fan of reducing our regulatory burden 3

by having a negotiated rulemaking on these. And when 4

you have lower costs and lower burden for 5

manufacturers, that leads to lower costs for consumers 6

because there's lower overhead, et cetera. 7

And we know that's all part of the goal of 8

the administration to reduce the regulatory burden, so 9

we'd appreciate a positive vote for that. So that's 10

the end of my sales pitch. 11

MR. deLASKI: Before Rusty leaves, are there 12

questions from the committee? 13

MR. CYMBALSKY: So maybe I'll start the 14

questions. So Paul talked about the test method and I 15

think you and Jill talked more about the standard. Is 16

it your desire to finish up your test procedure work 17

before any negotiation for a standard would kickoff? 18

MR. THARP: The simple answer is yes, we 19

would like the test procedure to be finalized and 20

because -- so this is my personal opinion, I don't 21

know if it's the same of everybody else, but everybody 22

else has the same opinion, but I would rather have the 23

test procedure agreed upon at the beginning of a 24

negotiated rulemaking. So I would like for that to be 25

104


finalized at the beginning of a negotiated rulemaking 1

so that as we go in and talk about an energy 2

conservation standard, we know what we're setting our, 3

our targets on. 4

MR. CYMBALSKY: And so when you say 5

finalize, do you mean a DOE final rule in the Federal 6

Register or do you mean your committee work, 7

finalizing their work or what, what exactly do you 8

mean? 9

MR. THARP: Well, well, from my perspective, 10

I think -- I don't think it would necessarily have to 11

be a final rule in the Federal Register. I think we'd 12

have to be in agreement that yes, we agree that the 13

test procedure as AHRI is in the process of modifying 14

with, as Paul indicated, input from multiple other 15

stakeholders that we -- 16

MR. DOPPEL: Including DOE. 17

MR. THARP: -- including DOE that we would 18

have that finalized at that point. So yeah, this is 19

the one we want to go with. 20

MR. CYMBALSKY: And then what's your time 21

line for that action? 22

MR. DOPPEL: We're, we're targeting May to 23

have it approved by the section, and so after that, it 24

would -- so it would be, I would say, June time frame 25

105


when it was final through the AHRI process. 1

MS. ARMSTRONG: So just to follow along that 2

line of questioning, if May/June is the schedule for 3

which the AHRI committee is working on, it is -- is it 4

your request of this committee that we consider 5

charting a working group and getting the -- 6

assuming -- let's say if the committee ends up 7

agreeing that that's a good pathway to get the 8

groundwork weighed for a committee to be up and 9

running in the summertime? 10

MR. THARP: Simply put, yes. 11

MS. ARMSTRONG: Yes. 12

MR. DOPPEL: Yes. 13

MR. THARP: Sooner rather than later. 14

MR. DOPPEL: Yes. 15

MR. GATTO: Dave Gatto, Westinghouse, I have 16

a question, and I don't want to make an assumption 17

here, although I'm kind of thinking this is where 18

we'll be. You're talking about changing the metric 19

used based on the new test procedure and that some of 20

the similar products that will fall under the same 21

coverage rule are using a different one now? 22

MR. DOPPEL: No, so actually, the -- 23

MR. GATTO: I guess -- 24

MR. DOPPEL: -- the, the testing has always, 25

106


since IEER was initiated many, many years ago, has 1

always -- IEER testing has always been done, but what 2

was recognized by Department of Energy was the EER 3

metric. 4

MR. GATTO: So you may be getting at where I 5

was going, then. So I guess the question I would have 6

as a non-stakeholder in that particular category, will 7

the manufacturers not here in this room today have to 8

retest or you're going to be using the same essential 9

test methodology but it's a different metric that's 10

coming out the other end? It's -- 11

MR. THARP: So the AHRI 1230 includes both 12

EER and IEER today and has since it was released. 13

ASHRAE 90.1 actually has values for both EER and the 14

IEER on both commercial rooftop, unitary products, as 15

well as VRF products. So the reality is it's 16

switching from EER to IEER is not a burden on 17

manufacturers. 18

MR. GATTO: Yeah, I kind of -- like I said, 19

I didn't want to make that assumption. It almost 20

sounded like one-third of the industry is doing it one 21

way, but it sounds like that's not actually true. 22

You're all doing it the same way. 23

MR. THARP: Right. 24

MR. GATTO: You just want to change so that 25

107


you're all using the same representative values, 1

whatever that metric -- what gets reported. 2

MR. THARP: Thank you for asking the 3

clarifying question. 4

MR. DOPPEL: And just, just one more point 5

on that, the Consortium for Energy Efficiency 6

publishes a rating for, for utility companies to use, 7

and when they published their VRF, they included both 8

the EER and IEER, and they said that, you know, for 9

this type of system, this is really the metric that 10

makes sense, so a good question. Thanks. 11

MR. GATTO: Okay. That's -- 12

MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah, and, and just to 13

clarify one thing I think that's an important nuance, 14

which you guys have alluded to, but the switch has 15

been made for the rooftop air conditioners at, at the 16

federal regulatory level as of January 1 of this year. 17

The competing product, which is VRF, has not made the 18

switch in metrics. It is still in the legacy metric, 19

so Paul's -- where Paul was going -- explaining the 20

test procedure and, and please correct me if I'm 21

wrong, I think one of the underlying really important 22

things is that competing products are using the same 23

metric as far as their representations to the 24

marketplace from a federal level, and that's not 25

108


occurring at this point. 1

MR. DOPPEL: Correct. 2

MR. GATTO: Okay. Dave Gatto, thanks 3

Ashley. Believe it or not, both from a federal 4

standpoint and from an industry standpoint, at least 5

in the industry I'm in, having everyone use the same 6

ways of representing the product is a good thing. 7

MR. deLASKI: Other questions for the 8

presenters? 9

MS. CLEARY: Jenn Cleary with AHAM, so as 10

you have been working within the AHRI task force to 11

develop changes to this test procedure, have you all 12

been testing your products? Because I'm just trying 13

to get at when would you be ready to initiate an 14

actual negotiation? I would assume at least from our 15

industry's experience, you would need some time to 16

understand where your products might be; is that -- 17

MR. DOPPEL: So the updating of a test 18

procedure is more, you know, we, we started from 19

something and we laid out procedures and methods to do 20

that. Well, when you get into the actual process of 21

doing it, it's like well, instead of doing A, B, and 22

C, you realize you have to do oh, A1, A2, A3; B1, B2, 23

B3; C1 -- you know? So it's incorporating those types 24

of things. It's making sure that the labs understand 25

109


exactly how to set the units up. 1

We, we developed also another section where 2

we defined what the lab's responsibilities are and the 3

manufacturer's responsibilities are regarding the 4

setup. One, one thing that's different about VRF 5

systems is they actually have to be installed in the 6

test chamber. The components are brought there and 7

then all of the interconnecting piping and wiring all 8

has to be added. So it makes it a little bit 9

different than, than other systems. 10

MS. HOOTMAN: So Jenn, this is Jill. Are 11

you asking that we understand what the effect is of 12

this metric on our ratings? 13

MS. CLEARY: Jenn Cleary, yes, that's what 14

I'm trying to understand if -- 15

MS. HOOTMAN: We did -- 16

MS. CLEARY: -- basically, what I'm really 17

getting at is if you finish this test in June and 18

assume that the working group that could be created 19

would agree to that and recommend that DOE adopt that 20

as the federal test procedure, then you would be ready 21

like in mid-June to start actually negotiating this. 22

MS. HOOTMAN: Yes, yes. We do understand 23

the metric and even today and understand what it's 24

effect is on our product, even today, so -- 25

110


MS. CLEARY: Okay. Thanks for the 1

clarification. 2

MR. THARP: So -- Rusty Tharp with Goodman, 3

a little -- a little more clarification is that, to 4

me, the -- what we're changing is really more tweaks 5

and clarifications in the test procedure and the 6

instructions thereof. In reality, I wouldn't expect 7

that our ratings would change really as a result of 8

the changes that are being made, if so, a very small 9

amount. 10

So I think we would be -- we would 11

understand fairly well what the differences are and 12

what the clarifications of the test procedure -- the 13

other thing to remember, as Paul noted, this test 14

procedure is relatively young, and as you would expect 15

with anything -- any test procedure of that nature 16

when you're talking fairly complex products with a lot 17

of flexibility for consumers, that you would learn a 18

lot as you go along in this test procedure as we're 19

testing and auditing at AHRI and in our own labs, so 20

we're making these tweaks and changes for clarifying 21

how we're all testing and then we'll make sure we're 22

all doing things the same way, whether it's in our own 23

facilities in AHRI audit testing or in any DOE audit 24

test. 25

111


MS. JACOBS: So -- I want to (phonetic) say 1

it another way, would you say that it hasn't been 2

sufficiently documented the way everyone's testing it 3

now? 4

MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp, Goodman, I'd rather 5

say -- I would rather say that we, we've, we've 6

learned a lot in the last seven years and we're making 7

improvements based on the learnings. 8

MR. CYMBALSKY: Rusty -- and I think all 9

three of you said -- that this action would reduce 10

burden at the end of the day if finalized the way you 11

envision it, the test procedure? 12

MR. DOPPEL: Yes, we do. 13

MR. CYMBALSKY: Okay. Thank you. 14

MR. WOLF: This is Mike Wolf, question, so 15

is there -- there's something in 90.1 that sets the 16

levels for VRF? 17

MS. HOOTMAN: Yes. 18

MR. DOPPEL: Yes, there is. 19

MR. THARP: Yes, 90.1 has levels for VRF. 20

MR. WOLF: So there's been a lot of dialogue 21

yesterday, as well as before that, that this is a case 22

where we have a somewhat regulatory requirement 23

through, through ASHRAE 90.1 and the energy codes for 24

something that doesn't yet have a test procedure for 25

112


it. 1

MS. HOOTMAN: It does. 2

MR. THARP: No, the test procedure exists 3

and has existed. 4

MR. WOLF: Okay. 5

MR. THARP: It's just we're -- again, we're 6

making improvements to the test procedure and making 7

clarifications on instructions and exactly what has to 8

be done and how you set it up. And so the, the EER 9

and IEER has been listed in ASHRAE 90.1 for several 10

years. 11

MR. WOLF: The original test procedure was 12

2010, okay, but so what I heard Ashley say though is 13

the, the, they don't -- they're not necessarily 14

meaning the same thing on a ducted type unit versus a 15

VRF type unit, so you kind of have got apples and 16

oranges for the same metric, which would be very 17

consuming -- very confusing -- 18

MS. HOOTMAN: Different metric competing 19

products -- 20

MR. WOLF: Okay, okay. All right. Okay. 21

MS. HOOTMAN: -- so the federal regulatory 22

metric, right? 23

MR. DOPPEL: Rooftops are IEER at this time. 24

MR. WOLF: Gotcha. 25

113


MR. DOPPEL: And VRF is still EER, so -- 1

MR. WOLF: Yes, okay. 2

MR. HOROWITZ: Noah with NRDC, trying to 3

understand what the actual request is and maybe the 4

sequencing. It seems like through an AHRI-led 5

process, you're close to making the tweaks necessary 6

to have a robust IEER metric, and is your intent to 7

finish that work or be close to finished with it and 8

then bring that to this committee and then start a 9

negotiation that finalizes -- adopts the test method 10

and then you then take the work to set the standard or 11

help me understand the sequencing. 12

MR. THARP: So I guess what I would envision 13

is that the AHRI committee, with communication with 14

others, the labs, DOE, et cetera, would complete our 15

work and then the -- bring that before it's released 16

as final by AHRI to the committee, basically get the 17

committee blessing, the working group blessing that 18

yes, this is what we want before we would actually go 19

publish it. And, you know, if we need to make any 20

tweaks, then we'd have the opportunity to tweak it 21

before we publish it or an alternative is we could 22

publish it so that it's on the record and then come 23

back with an addendum as, as needed because we can do 24

addendums fairly quickly and, and then after that test 25

114


procedure is finalized, agreed upon, then we would 1

start with the ECS process. 2

MR. DOPPEL: So there was a test procedure 3

submitted with the RFI. So what, what has happened 4

since then is that there's been some DOE rulemakings 5

on the products less than 65,000 so the majority of 6

the work that we're doing now is sort of coordinating 7

that with the 210, 240 standard that was just done to 8

make sure that both standards are aligned. So the, 9

the standard was submitted with the RFI several years 10

ago. And so -- 11

MS. ARMSTRONG: A draft of the standard -- 12

MR. DOPPEL: A draft, a draft of the 13

standard. 14

MS. ARMSTRONG: -- a working draft of the 15

standard was submitted -- 16

MR. DOPPEL: Yes. 17

MS. ARMSTRONG: -- in response to the RFI -- 18

MR. DOPPEL: Yes, it was. 19

MS. ARMSTRONG: -- where tests subsequently 20

may have been changed by the committee -- 21

MR. DOPPEL: True. 22

MS. ARMSTRONG: -- and is ongoing, so 23

clarify. 24

MR. DOPPEL: And, and we're updating. We're 25

115


updating. 1

MS. ARMSTRONG: Minor, minor clarifications. 2

So I just want to clear up a few terms. We have some 3

new people in ASRAC, and it's been a while since we've 4

all met, so I just want to -- so and, and I want to 5

make sure I understand what it is you guys are asking. 6

So just from an administrative perspective, so there 7

is the committee, ASRAC. 8

There is a working group that typically is 9

formed to negotiate a specific thing. That working 10

group will be different members. It can -- it will 11

have some of the ASRAC members, but we will solicit 12

separate nominations for that process. The working 13

group is typically where a lot of the technical work 14

is done with negotiating the actual test procedures or 15

standards, so when you were using the term committee 16

before, I think you were referring to working group. 17

MR. THARP: Yes, thank you. 18

MS. ARMSTRONG: In other words, your ask is 19

that ASRAC, and I'm translating, and this is not 20

speaking on behalf of the Department, I'm just trying 21

to -- so your, your ask, I think, is for ASRAC to 22

consider a working group to establish or to negotiate 23

test procedures and standards for this product with a 24

recognizing that the industry process is working 25

116


through a test procedure update, and the hope and 1

expectation is that the working group can quickly 2

initially review that, agree to it and move forward to 3

concentrate on standards. 4

MR. THARP: Yes, ma'am. 5

MS. ARMSTRONG: Does that help? 6

MR. THARP: Yes, that is correct. Thank you 7

for the clarification, Ashley. 8

MR. WINNINGHAM: So Rusty, just to, to kind 9

of elaborate on what Ashley's question and 10

clarification and I think that helped a lot, is it the 11

intent that you would start the working group process 12

and agree to a term sheet on the test procedure that 13

you would bring back for approval and then start the 14

working group on the efficiency standards or is it 15

the, the requests kind of all in one and the test 16

procedure would be part of an overall package? 17

MR. THARP: This is Rusty with Goodman, I 18

would -- I would envision that ASRAC would develop a 19

working group and that the assignment of that working 20

group would be to agree upon a test procedure and an 21

energy conservation standard with the direction from 22

the ASRAC -- full ASRAC committee that the test 23

procedure must be finalized before there's 24

negotiations on the energy conservation standard. And 25

117


I would -- I would assume that at the -- at the 1

beginning, that there'd be a lot of back and -- a lot 2

of information exchanged on -- as typically is done in 3

the RFI and the in manufacturing impact analysis, 4

MIAs, that are typically done, a lot of that would be 5

done at the beginning, also, but the discussions 6

itself on energy conservation standard would not start 7

until after the test procedure would be agreed upon. 8

Would you guys agree? Jill? 9

MS. HOOTMAN: Yes. 10

MR. DOPPEL: Yeah, I would agree. 11

MS. MILLER: Thanks for that question. I 12

thought that was really helpful for clarifying. This 13

is Sofie Miller. One thing that's from a consumer 14

perspective I tend to think of when manufacturers are 15

themselves trying to initiate a standards process is 16

will this, in some way, impede some of their 17

competitors from entering in this market, and if so, 18

would there be a loss of competition from which 19

consumers would, would not be benefitted? 20

So not, not really having the lay of the 21

land in terms of your competition and who the large 22

manufacturers are in your -- in your segments, can you 23

tell me a little bit about what -- with an energy 24

conservation standard in mind, what some of the 25

118


incentives might be from your perspective as it 1

pertains to some of your competitors or if there might 2

be some anti-competitive effects of such a standard? 3

MR. THARP: Rusty Tharp with Goodman Daiken, 4

I, I don't perceive that there would be any 5

significant or any measurable anti-competitive issues. 6

If you look at the -- Paul Doppel with Mitsubishi has 7

been involved in this much longer than I have, but the 8

reality is there's these, these products were 9

initially created in the Asian/Japanese market and 10

have started bleeding into the North American market, 11

as Jill indicated in, in her intro. Many of the major 12

North American competitors of HVAC products have not 13

offered VRF products early on, but now almost all of 14

the major VRF competitor -- or most of the North 15

American HVAC competitors, if you want to think of the 16

major seven, almost all of them now are offering VRF 17

products. 18

So actually, the VRF market is growing 19

substantially. There's a lot of -- there are Chinese, 20

Korean, Japanese manufacturers. You've got North 21

American manufacturers getting into it. And I -- 22

quite frankly, I don't see how we could really make it 23

non-competitive. 24

MS. HOOTMAN: And this is Jill Hootman from 25

119


Ingersoll Rand, I mean we're already -- the 1

marketplace is already regulated. It's just on a 2

different metric, so I don't see how it would change 3

it by changing to a different metric. 4

MS. MILLER: I think I was referring to a 5

desire to negotiate new energy conservation standards, 6

rather than the test procedure issue, which I, I kind 7

of separate in my mind because I work more on the 8

standard side than on test procedures. Just one thing 9

that we've seen in the past is that on occasion, there 10

can be standards that are set at a level where 11

domestic manufacturers can meet them but then perhaps 12

there can't be imported products, in which case, 13

American consumers do lose out because there are fewer 14

options in the marketplace in some cases. So I just 15

wanted to get a feel for whether or not that's the 16

case here, given that especially many of these 17

products, VRF products, many of them are manufactured 18

in Asia specifically. 19

MR. THARP: Yeah, so just real quickly on 20

that, I think the -- I would say nearly 100 percent, 21

if not 100 percent of the indoor products of VRF 22

systems are made outside of the United States and 23

it -- so we have to rely on imports basically for the 24

indoor sections of those and, you know, don't think it 25

120


would hurt a little bit to brag that my company has 1

invested heavily into developing a new, new production 2

facility here in the United States, basically a half-3

a-billion dollar facility outside of Houston, where we 4

are manufacturing -- I guess assembling, depending on 5

the terminology we're using, we're definitely 6

assembling, if not manufacturing the outdoor sections 7

of these products here in the United States, so we're 8

actually bringing jobs into the United States 9

benefitting consumers here and, and people here in the 10

United States for that. 11

MR. WINNINGHAM: John, one of the things I 12

think might help in that discussion is kind of how the 13

formulation of a working group and, and any current 14

thoughts on representativeness of the various interest 15

groups around that and maybe DOE's latest thoughts. 16

MR. CYMBALSKY: Sure. So this is John from 17

DOE. As is always the case, you know, this will, if 18

the working group is going to be formed, we'll put out 19

a Federal Register notice and solicit nominations 20

across, across all interested stakeholders, including 21

consumer groups, manufacturers, of course, energy 22

efficiency advocates, utilities, states, everyone, 23

right? So installers, to the extent that they, 24

they've been in a few of these, I think with, with 25

121


CUAC, we had an installer on that committee. So we 1

always do our best to get every interested stakeholder 2

involved, so we will do that again. 3

And, of course, members of ASRAC and, and 4

whoever else, you know, it's, it's helpful to spread 5

the word. I mean not everyone reads the Federal 6

Register, and not everyone gets our email blast, 7

believe it or not. So I think it's incumbent on us 8

to, to -- as a group, to do our best to, to recruit 9

folks who should be on the group, frankly. And so 10

once we get the pile of applicants, as is the normal 11

process, we'll go through them and, and pick out the 12

ones for representativeness and experience in the 13

field, et cetera, et cetera, to, to form a balanced 14

working group. 15

MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. I have a 16

couple comments, different questions, but I -- we have 17

no stake in the, the, this particular project. We 18

don't make anything like this, but it, it very much 19

parallels refrigeration capacities as far as grocery 20

store type refrigeration where you have multiple 21

possible trails of refrigerant going this way, that 22

way and the other way. And it is very, very relevant 23

to the refrigeration people to get -- be -- and 24

probably review, if certainly not be involved in this, 25

122


that this has a relevance beyond just the HVAC group, 1

also into the refrigeration group because the same 2

problems exist in refrigeration, in certain sectors of 3

the refrigeration that are driving everyone in this 4

room. 5

As far as the DOE goes, half of that sector 6

is regulated; half of it isn't for these very same 7

questions. I think it'll be very beneficial that we 8

really review this because as a refrigeration person, 9

I'm going to be watching the result because it, it has 10

relevance to what could happen in our industry as 11

well. And it's very important because right now, 12

there is no regulation at certain levels of that, 13

which has, has always been a difficult situation with 14

the DOE. 15

So to me, I see a very complex problem here 16

that they're trying to come up with a very good 17

solution, what appears to be a very good solution, if 18

it works out correctly, to make it so that they can 19

truly add to the selections available to the North 20

American market in an honest way, in a straightforward 21

way because these are fairly new products into the 22

North American market and they are -- by adding 23

selection possibilities, you're giving a customer 24

potential pricing -- improved pricing, improved 25

123


efficiencies, all kinds of different possibilities 1

there with this new product -- new product 2

introduction, but also put it in parallel with the 3

existing equipment, so it's really relevant to do 4

this, and it could be a very complex process, so just 5

the rulemaking will be very difficult to understand 6

the rulemaking process because there are so many new 7

elements we're discussing here. So I would be very 8

much in favor of that. 9

MR. CYMBALSKY: It sounds like we have our 10

first ASRAC volunteer for this working group. 11

(Laughter.) 12

MR. deLASKI: This is Andrew. I, I want to 13

come back to the point, I, I don't think you can 14

separate the task method and the standard in this 15

particular case because the request is to change the 16

test method. If you change the test method, you've 17

got to change the standard, right? So they, they're 18

the same. You can't -- you know, you can't change one 19

without changing the other, so, so it is the, the -- 20

it is a package request, and you can't consider it as 21

a -- you know, point A leads to point B. 22

Other questions on this? 23

MS. CLEARY: Yeah, this is Jenn Cleary, so 24

understanding when you're going to finish this test 25

124


procedure effort from an AHRI perspective, which is 1

several months from now, I just -- is there a reason 2

why you want the working group approved now instead of 3

when that effort is completed? 4

MR. THARP: Again, typically, it takes some 5

time, you know, for the ASRAC approval, then the 6

internal DOE approval; then the publication in the 7

Federal Register, and then the -- you know, the time 8

period for applications; then the review of the 9

applications. So I would -- I would envision even if 10

the ASRAC working group -- ASRAC committee agrees to 11

form a working group today that it's going to be a few 12

months down the road anyway before that group even 13

starts. 14

MS. CLEARY: Hi, this is Jenn. Thank you. 15

And my last question is for the Department. Given -- 16

oh, yeah, sorry -- 17

MS. HOOTMAN: Well, yeah, I was just going 18

to say to follow on that, you know, you all didn't 19

meet all last year, so, you know, you don't meet on a 20

regular basis. I kind of want to get the surety now 21

so that we can, you know, align our resources such 22

that -- such that way. 23

(Laughter.) 24

MS. CLEARY: Jenn Cleary, Jill, I'll, I'll 25

125


schedule -- I'll schedule the next meeting. 1

(Laughter.) 2

MS. CLEARY: My last question is for the 3

Department, which is kind of going back to what Andrew 4

was talking about before there, pending term sheets. 5

If, if we approve a working group, do we have 6

assurances that DOE will be participating and that 7

this will move forward? 8

MR. CYMBALSKY: So I think we heard from 9

Daniel this morning that, that DOE values the 10

negotiated rulemaking process, so I'll just echo what 11

he said. 12

MR. WOLF: This is Mike Wolf. So I want to 13

follow-up on that, but, you know, I picked out on the 14

word statutory -- whatever the -- translate for me, 15

Ashley -- 16

MS. ARMSTRONG: Keep going. You're doing 17

great. 18

MR. WOLF: -- statutorily required is this 19

something that would fall under that? 20


MR. WOLF: Okay. 22

MR. deLASKI: Which also speaks to the 23

timing because the deadline's coming up. 24


126


MR. deLASKI: In fact, it's going to be 1

tough to hit the deadline if we approve a group today, 2

so -- and if there's not a -- you know, it's, it's 3

going to -- where this leads to if there's not a 4

process is, is unclear, right? But there is a 5

statutory deadline and it's coming up. 6

MR. GATTO: So Andrew, it's Dave. I guess 7

the question I would have is what are the odds of 8

hitting that deadline if there isn't a working group? 9

Because I would -- 10

MR. deLASKI: If there's not a working 11

group? 12

MR. GATTO: Right. 13

MR. deLASKI: I can't answer that question 14

for you. 15

MR. GATTO: No, I guess what I'm saying is 16

that if the -- if the concern was, you know, 17

they're -- they may miss the deadline, I, I don't know 18

that that's relevant, just because the -- if the 19

deadline -- if there's no -- if you don't have an open 20

rulemaking, John, what -- you know, I don't -- you 21

don't have to actually answer this, but if there's no 22

open rulemaking now -- 23

MR. CYMBALSKY: There is -- there is an open 24

rulemaking. 25

127


MS. ARMSTRONG: There is, it's open. 1

MALE VOICE: It's open. It's been open. 2

MR. GATTO: So this is the RFI with the 3

draft test procedure for, for giving -- 4

MR. CYMBALSKY: No, they, they, they 5

commented with the procedure, as far as I recall. 6

MR. GATTO: Okay. So I guess -- so not 7

knowing where you are in that process, I apologize, 8

Andrew, then maybe it is possible, but, you know, my 9

experience is if you're that early in the process, the 10

working group might actually be a more efficient way 11

of hitting or maybe not missing the deadline as badly 12

is, is, is probably a more fair way to say it. 13

MS. ARMSTRONG: So I'm going to -- so one, I 14

think, point-of-view, and maybe not necessarily the 15

Department's, but I think one thing to appreciate is 16

that as they explained, this -- these products are 17

very complicated. They come in a variety of different 18

configurations. They get installed in a variety of 19

different ways, some never the same twice. From a 20

purely analytical standpoint, to do the analysis on an 21

industry like that, it is hard. 22

It is challenging. And so the benefit of 23

being able -- and I'm going to speak from, you know, 24

if I was one of the analytical consultants from the 25

128


Department, the benefit from being able to sit across 1

the room with the manufacturers, with installers, with 2

utilities, with consumer groups. The people that are 3

otherwise all affected by the rule and talk about the 4

analysis, the inputs, what it looks like, be able to 5

do real-time changes, I think in this particular case 6

is astronomically beneficial. 7

MR. CYMBALSKY: Kristen? 8

MS. DRISKELL: A completely different 9

question. So for your test procedure, it will change 10

-- it won't change the ratings? It might change the 11

ratings? It won't change the ratings so that existing 12

information that's presumably reported to AHRI or 13

ASHRAE 90.1, we can use that data -- 14

MS. HOOTMAN: Or you -- or you. 15

MS. DRISKELL: -- or to us -- I was trying 16

not to remember that I, I do that. We can use that 17

information, it won't need to be updated. Once you 18

finish this test procedure, we can start right away 19

with the information we have. You don't clean it up, 20

it's good. Okay. 21

MR. CYMBALSKY: Okay. 22

MS. HOOTMAN: There may be reprogramming 23

changes that have to happen, I will say that. I mean, 24

you know, as far as the filing on CCMS or something 25

129


like that, there might be, but -- 1

MR. CYMBALSKY: Try to get this to a vote -- 2

MS. MILLER: Hopefully this isn't a 3

question, but one thing to keep in mind, when Charlie 4

was talking about how this could be enabling, in some 5

ways enabling different products in the market to be 6

available, to the extent that it's true that a change 7

in regulation could be enabling to that kind of 8

activity, under OMB guidance, part of that rule could 9

be considered partially deregulatory activity as well. 10

So that's something to keep in mind if that really is 11

the interaction that it has in the marketplace and it 12

does make new products available to consumers, that 13

might be a box that you're able to check. 14

MR. CYMBALSKY: Can you hear me? -- Okay. 15

So I want to start at my right, and we'll just go 16

around the table, vote yea or nay. We're just going 17

to go around like this, so Andrew? 18

MR. deLASKI: So we're supportive. We 19

support creating a working group to address the test 20

method and the standard for VRF. 21

MS. CLEARY: Jenn Cleary, support so long as 22

the test procedure is completed before discussions of 23

standards begin. 24

MR. WINNINGHAM: We support and, again, with 25

130


the stipulation that the test procedure is, is in 1

place before the standards begin. 2

MS. MILLER: Support and would be interested 3

in discussing further in that whether or not there may 4

be barriers to imports through the enforcement of 5

different standards. 6

MS. SIM: In support with the stipulation 7

that the test procedures be completed and accepted 8

before proceeding into a working group. 9

MR. CYMBALSKY: Okay. Kristen? 10

MS. DRISKELL: Kristen Driskell, support. 11

MR. HOROWITZ: Noah Horowitz, NRDC, support 12

with the test method going first. 13

MR. GATTO: Dave Gatto, Westinghouse, 14

support with the same stipulation on the test 15

procedure being completed first. 16

MR. WOLF: Mike Wolf, Greenheck, support 17

with the same stipulation on test procedure going 18

first. 19

MS. JACOBS: Diane Jacobs, support with the 20

test procedure coming first. 21

MR. HON: Charlie Hon, support with the test 22

procedure as well. 23

MS. ARMSTRONG: Ashley Armstrong, DOE, 24

abstain. 25

131


MR. CYMBALSKY: Okay. So I think what we 1

need to talk about now is, is schedule and what the 2

actual ask from ASRAC will be to the working group. 3

We all agree that the test procedure must be done 4

first, so not to put too much pressure on the industry 5

guys, but it sounds like June, but clearly, that date 6

can float. They need to finish their work, and we 7

won't do anything until that work's complete. 8

MS. ARMSTRONG: We won't? 9

MR. CYMBALSKY: We won't start negotiating, 10

we will do -- 11

MS. ARMSTRONG: Standards. 12

MR. CYMBALSKY: Right. 13

MALE VOICE: The standards. 14

MR. CYMBALSKY: Right. So the question is 15

once, once the group is formed, let's just say 16

everything goes according to plan, how much time are 17

you requesting to do negotiations? So we don't need 18

hard dates of it needs to be let's say August, but how 19

many -- once we commence, how much time? 20

MR. THARP: Six months. 21

MR. CYMBALSKY: Six months. Okay. 22

MALE VOICE: For the test method and the 23

standard or just to review and adopt the test method? 24

MR. CYMBALSKY: It sounds like the whole 25

132


package. 1

MR. THARP: The whole package, yeah 2

MR. CYMBALSKY: Okay. So anyone in -- you 3

know, so I'm not going to say -- like I said, I'm not 4

going to say a hard date, I'm going to say from 5

commencement, the group will have six months. 6

MS. ARMSTRONG: And does ASRAC want to 7

stipulate to the working group that they pass forward 8

a term sheet on the test procedure agreement first and 9

then secondary, they can have a second term sheet on 10

the standards? 11

MS. CLEARY: It's Jenn Cleary, yes. 12

MS. ARMSTRONG: Just all around the room. 13

Yes? I see a lot of shaking heads, so I'm going to 14

say yes around the room. 15

MS. DRISKELL: I have hopefully a related 16

question. Has, has DOE been invited to participate in 17

the test procedure development that we're talking 18

about? Has it also been open to -- so there were nods 19

-- has it also been open to the Energy Commission, who 20

might be interested in this as well? 21

MS. ARMSTRONG: So the answer for DOE is 22

yes, we've been an active participant over the years 23

in this one and are actively participating now. I 24

can't answer the other one. 25

133


MR. THARP: For the -- in recent major test 1

procedures for AHRI, specifically 210, 240 and 1230, 2

we've created the normal process is the engineering 3

committee reviews and develops it, then the section 4

approves. Then there's a standards committee that 5

approves, so there's these three steps. We actually 6

created for those two a preliminary committee, we call 7

the ECTC, and there was a call for members that was 8

sent out. 9

I don't know who all that went to prior, but 10

it was pretty -- I'm pretty sure it was blasted out to 11

all of our contacts, including energy advocates and 12

others, but I -- we can get that for you. I don't 13

know if you happen to know, Paul, who all -- I don't 14

know who all it was sent to. I'll find out and get 15

that information to you. But the committee, as far as 16

I'm concerned, it's open for participation. 17

MR. DOPPEL: So other than Department of 18

Energy, we also have a CSA participating out of Canada 19

and, and also Intertek Laboratories and other 20

laboratories were invited to participate, too. 21

MS. DRISKELL: Okay. I'm just thinking if 22

we're asking to form a working group to take a test 23

procedure and approve it. It might be helpful if 24

potential groups who will be on that working group 25

134


have some indication of what this test procedure is as 1

it's developing so they can raise issues now rather 2

than during the working group, especially given the 3

time frame that you're requesting. 4

MR. DOPPEL: So a year -- a year ago, we had 5

a meeting with many members of the advocacy groups, 6

including someone from the California Energy 7

Commission, and we reviewed the standard with the -- 8

draft standard with, with that group at that time. So 9

we have been very open with, with the standard and 10

what, what it can take. So someone from CEC has seen 11

and was given copies of that, so they understand what, 12

what VRF is, what we're trying to achieve by the 13

testing. So we've been -- we've been very open with 14

that. 15

MR. WOLF: Mike Wolf, Greenheck, I have a 16

question kind of related to, you know, the 17

participants on these working groups, not only this 18

one, but just more in general. From a consumer 19

perspective, who would -- who would you guys define as 20

the consumer for this type of product. I always 21

struggle with that for commercial products. I mean, 22

you know -- 23

MS. HOOTMAN: Commercial building owners? 24

MR. THARP: Commercial, commercial building 25

135


people, commercial contractors are the ones -- 1

MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah. 2

MR. THARP: -- who typically install these 3

types of products. 4

MS. HOOTMAN: Yeah. 5

MR. WOLF: Okay. I understand. 6

MR. THARP: Not, not your regular -- 7

MS. HOOTMAN: And just about every building 8

type in, in commercial uses them, could use them. 9

MR. WOLF: Okay. I understand that. In, in 10

my little world, though, the, the commercial 11

contractor's a completely different audience than the 12

building owner, a lot of times. And, you know, 13

engineers and architects fall into that. I was just 14

kind of curious what others' perspectives were on 15

that. 16

MS. HOOTMAN: All of the above. 17

MR. DOPPEL: Yeah. so all of the above would 18

be -- 19

MS. HOOTMAN: All of the above, yeah. 20

MR. DOPPEL: Yeah, all of the above. 21

MS. HOOTMAN: Distribution chain is all of 22

the -- 23

MR. DOPPEL: Right. And we've, we've always 24

-- all manufacturers, I'm, I'm pretty confident, have 25

136


always worked with architects, engineers, contractors. 1

In fact, all VRF manufacturers have extensive 2

training programs for contractors because of the -- so 3

they understand the systems and can install all of the 4

systems properly. 5

MR. deLASKI: This is Andrew. I think it 6

makes sense for the Department to -- in putting out a 7

solicitation for membership to be sure to solicit, you 8

know, participation from the users of the product and 9

make -- do direct outreach to try to identify -- I 10

mean there are various associations; there are -- you 11

know, they, they exist. You know who they are, and 12

sometimes there are leaders in the field you can 13

recruit to try to participate. It does take a lot of 14

time, so it's not easy to get participation in things 15

like this, but it's -- you can recruit people to 16

participate. 17

MS. ARMSTRONG: And so one other thing, one 18

other question that comes to mind for ASRAC is 19

typically we solicit nominations through the -- for 20

the working group through the Federal Register 21

process. After that, we get all of those nominations, 22

we put them in a big pile and we bring them to ASRAC 23

for really the first level consideration. So is there 24

anything else? 25

137


History has shown that typically we, we just 1

ask for a resume, but sometimes that doesn't get 2

really to the issue of why someone wants to be on that 3

committee or what they bring to the table to add to 4

the committee or what relevance they might or who they 5

might be, so is there anything particular ASRAC would 6

want us to ask for members to provide, even if it's a 7

simple one-page statement about why they want to be on 8

the committee and what their interests are 9

representing before we put out this Federal Register 10

notice soliciting applications? 11

MS. JACOBS: So I, I think that's something 12

we talked about maybe -- 13

MS. ARMSTRONG: Okay. I was just -- 14

MS. JACOBS: -- 18 months ago, but -- 15

MS. ARMSTRONG: That's right (phonetic). 16

MS. JACOBS: Yeah, the -- not, not only 17

that, but what they -- I mean it's not a -- you can't 18

be a spectator. You have to have something to 19

contribute to the work and the, the analysts depend on 20

whatever data can be provided, so there's kind of an 21

implicit understanding that to be effective, we need 22

data from somewhere and if we -- if someone in 23

applying is offering to provide data as much as they 24

can or whatever, that I think in the solicitation, we 25

138


should have some paragraph about asking them what they 1

think they will contribute, whether they have some 2

field data available for the analysis and I, I think 3

that would cover it. I don't know. 4

MR. deLASKI: Ask them to submit a letter of 5

application, right? And you, you've described in the 6

notice what this is all about, and a letter of 7

application, I think, you know -- 8

MS. JACOBS: Will take care of it. 9

MR. deLASKI: -- will take care of it. You 10

can tell them what to ask for. 11

MS. JACOBS: But we need a response from 12

them, too. 13

MR. deLASKI: Yeah, a letter of application, 14

I think, invites that response and, you know, 15

presumably, they want to be on the committee. You 16

know, in my experience, in our experience, we haven't 17

had the number of applicants in the committee, 18

committees has not been that large, right? 19

MS. JACOBS: Except for the last one. 20

MR. deLASKI: There have been one or two, 21

you know, but by-and-large, it's like everybody who 22

applied gets in, right? It's like it's not -- this is 23

not like getting into Harvard or something, you know? 24

(Laughter.) 25

139


Mr. deLASKI: You know, it's -- you're 1

taking the, the, the people who are willing to put in 2

the effort. Now, there is, in some cases, I, I agree 3

with you, there has been a couple of cases where you 4

had to pick, so that's where having this letter, I 5

think, would be very helpful. 6

MS. JACOBS: I think on the pool pumps or 7

the -- one of the pumps, but there were -- in the 8

early ones, anybody who was in the audience was 9

welcome to join the conversation. And then with the 10

pool pumps, it seems like we restricted the -- who 11

could actively participate to the people actually on 12

the working group? No? Well, I remember this one guy 13

named Buzz, maybe, but anyway, so anyway -- 14

(Pause.) 15

MS. JACOBS: All right. 16

MR. WOLF: So this is Mike with Greenheck, 17

to that point, I know we've chatted about the -- you 18

know, the, the fan working group was pretty darn 19

large, and is there kind of an optimum number that DOE 20

or anyone has kind of thought is the right number? 21

MS. ARMSTRONG: So I think DOE, at this 22

point, has no opinions on an optimum. We've had 23

different dynamics for different working groups. We 24

need to make sure that the working group is balanced; 25

140


it meets the requirements for different type of 1

representations, and then it can be up to 25. So I 2

think it really depends on what we get because if we 3

get 24 manufacturers and one other person, I'm pretty 4

sure we're going to have to make some hard decisions. 5

So it, it really just depends on those applicants. 6

And so we would ask for your help in, in -- when this 7

goes out, sending it to anyone you know that would be 8

representative, that would be willing to do this, that 9

would be willing to help us with this -- assuming, oh, 10

yeah, so -- 11

MR. deLASKI: -- where we are, the decision 12

here? 13

MS. ARMSTRONG: So ASRAC just voted to 14

charter a working group to negotiate the test 15

procedures and energy conservation standards for VRFs, 16

with a few stipulations. ASRAC is willing to give the 17

working group six months for negotiation from the 18

first meeting. ASRAC requests two separate term 19

sheets: first, the test procedures, followed then by 20

the standards. ASRAC is also going to stipulate that 21

the committee may not begin negotiating the standards 22

until an agreement on the test procedure is made and 23

the term sheet is passed to ASRAC. And that's it. 24

MR. deLASKI: Okay. 25

141


MS. ARMSTRONG: And then there's other 1

things for the working group Federal Register notice 2

that I have written down as the Department to do. 3

MR. deLASKI: Okay. Thanks. We usually 4

save time at the end for audience questions, Steve. 5

Is that okay if we put that off until the end, we have 6

time for audience questions or comments? I wanted to 7

come back to the recent DOE notices and there was some 8

discussion this morning about that, and I also wanted 9

to come back to the potential for other working groups 10

down the road and then also come back to the 11

outstanding business of prior working groups. 12

So maybe we can take some of those -- take 13

those in reverse order because that might be something 14

that might be kind of quick. So in terms of things 15

that might be kind of quick, I wanted to ask the 16

Department if there's any update on circulators? 17

MR. CYMBALSKY: Not at this time. DOE is 18

still evaluating what was presented to the Department, 19

so nothing new there. 20

MR. deLASKI: Okay. And I think we've 21

already talked about the rooftop air conditioners and 22

the walk-ins and the one other item, I guess, is the 23

pool -- the pool pump labeling topic, whether that's 24

been addressed at all, if you don't know the answer, 25

142


then that's fine. 1

MS. ARMSTRONG: Skip to the end -- 2


MR. CYMBALSKY: Yeah, let's, let's 4

contemplate, yeah. 5

MR. deLASKI: Okay. So those are the things 6

I had as outstanding business from prior term sheets. 7

Is there anything else that's outstanding business 8

from prior, prior term sheets that people wanted to 9

raise? Okay. So there was some discussion this 10

morning about this group's role with respect to the 11

RFI on -- 12

MR. WOLF: Andrew, sorry, Mike here. 13

MR. deLASKI: Yes. 14

MR. WOLF: Can, can I just ask, there was a 15

term sheet on fans as well, which was just sitting 16

there. Sorry, Ashley. 17

MS. ARMSTRONG: Hi, Mike. I think fans is 18

one. So the Department's working to meet all its 19

statutory obligations right now, and I think fans is 20

one it's still considering. It understands it has a 21

term sheet. It's very complicated, and we're still 22

working through those issues. To the extent we can 23

work with the industry committee at the same time, 24

we'll talk about how to do that. 25

143


MR. deLASKI: The one other item I wanted to 1

move onto is the -- I guess the thing I wanted to say 2

was are there any other topics out there that people 3

want to flag as potential subjects for future 4

negotiations, not things that are perhaps ready to be 5

moved on today as a, you know, form -- like a 6

proposal, like we had from the industry on VRFs, but 7

are there any other products out there that -- 8

products or topics that people think may be a good 9

candidate for a future working group? 10

Diane? 11

MS. JACOBS: So yesterday, there was a 12

public meeting about the process for rulemakings. Is 13

that a possible working group topic? 14

MR. deLASKI: I think it's a fair question, 15

and I think that was -- that was my third item, I 16

guess, was to, to raise that, so you're getting into 17

the -- 18

MR. CYMBALSKY: Let's -- yeah, let's put 19

that to Andrew's third item. 20

MR. deLASKI: Okay. So aside from the 21

process, dealing with those process issues, which we 22

have talked about in lots of prior meetings, those are 23

not fresh, not all new, are there other topics that 24

people -- topics, products, test methods, you know, 25

144


that people think are coming down the pike that are 1

worth flagging now for -- so people can start thinking 2

about them? 3

MR. CYMBALSKY: And I know we all have our 4

homework assignments with the reg agenda, kind of 5

planning stuff too, so to the extent that, you know, 6

that's a logical follow-on maybe to that exercise. 7

I mean we're talking a lot about the process 8

rule. I do want to say we did issue another RFI about 9

different approaches to the regulatory nature of this 10

program. I don't know if you all saw that. It came 11

out, I think, last -- 12

MALE VOICE: Market base. 13

MR. CYMBALSKY: Yeah, the market-based 14

approaches. So that came out in late November. So to 15

the extent anyone wants to talk about that -- I mean, 16

it's pretty self-explanatory. It just lays out what 17

other approaches might exist. But I don't know if 18

that's something ASRAC wanted to talk about before we 19

get into the process rule. Because I think, as Andrew 20

said, you know, yesterday's meeting there were a lot 21

of issues that were brought up, I think this group is 22

well positioned to comment on. Okay, so we'll just go 23

with the process rule, so have at it. 24

MR. deLASKI: So you want to follow up 25

145


there, Diane? I think the question you're posing is, 1

is there some role for ASRAC for the parent committee 2

-- now, we're not talking about creating a working 3

group perhaps, but is there some role for the parent 4

committee or maybe it's working group, to think about, 5

to respond to some of the issues that have been raised 6

in the context of the process rule RFI. 7

MS. JAKOBS: Yes, that's what I was 8

thinking. And kind of when I think back all that I've 9

learned from being part of this committee for the two 10

years when we were active and all the rulemakings, it 11

seems like that we would be a good group to weigh in. 12

And also that the negotiated rulemaking process would 13

be a good way to look at reviewing the processes we do 14

have and looking for ways to improve them or maybe 15

some of it goes away and something else happens. But 16

what was in -- when you talk about the Cap A methods 17

and market, I mean, to me that sounds really 18

complicated and a little bit scary. But, I don't 19

know, you know, if you're kind of familiar with -- you 20

know, I mean, you can be disgruntled with what you're 21

doing, but at least you know what it is and you know 22

what the problems are and maybe you have some ways to 23

deal with them. But if you do something completely 24

different, then you really don't know where the issues 25

146


can be. 1

So I'm not sure it's just my ignorance that 2

makes me be concerned about it, but the whole issue of 3

the verification and I think a lot of the regulated 4

process or products, they're not very precise. Our 5

manufacturing processes are not very precise. And we 6

talk about these high confidence levels and 7

repeatability of the energy measurements we take and 8

what we're held to, that it may be inconsistent with 9

our manufacturing processes, you know. The fact that 10

we want to say 97-1/2 confidence level on furnaces, 11

but they're just sheet metal and so they're not built 12

exactly the same every time. 13

So there's a lot to the rulemaking process, 14

the verification and certification processes. And it 15

seems like maybe a high-level review and then, you 16

know, a working group to do specifics, it just seems 17

like we're -- you've educated us, so that we might be 18

helpful. 19

MR. CYMBALSKY: So I agree. This is John 20

from DOE. I think from a timing point of view, I 21

think for the process rule, that it would be this 22

group. If this group decides it wants to comment as a 23

group, then that's something I think we have to all 24

vote on and agree that that's what they want to do, 25

147


because obviously not everyone on this group may have 1

the same opinion. So I think that's the first thing 2

you need to do, is do you want this group to comment 3

as a whole on at least on a few of the issue raised. 4

And I definitely heard on a few of the issues, it was 5

pretty easy that everyone agreed. You know, at least 6

on one issue, everyone just said yes, right. 7

But the first thing you have to consider is 8

does ASRAC, as a group, want to recommend something. 9

If not, then we're all on our own, right. But I don't 10

think a working group -- just timing-wise to form a 11

working group and then have another different group, I 12

think that should be off the table. I think it should 13

just be you all, for what that's worth. 14

MR. HOROWITZ: Noah with NRDC. A couple of 15

thoughts. I think it's worth a shot of trying to work 16

together to come up with a common set of comments that 17

we could all agree to and submit. And I think that 18

would go a long way given the diverse set of 19

stakeholders we have here. And I think we should 20

focus on that and not conflate the other RFI that's 21

out there for the alternate regulatory processes. And 22

I share your concerns, but I think that's a different 23

process and we can maybe talk separately about having 24

to deal with that. 25

148


Then the question is how do we do this. And 1

I think you're right, there are probably a list of, 2

I'm making up a number, six or seven issues and maybe 3

we can quickly do some triage and say given each of 4

our respective points of view, let's focus on these 5

four and try to get to yes and then try and submit 6

that. I don't know what the process would be to make 7

that happen. And then the other question I would 8

have, each of us should think about, even though we 9

sign on to these group comments, do we still have the 10

ability to submit separate ones, which I would argue 11

people should have that ability if they want. 12

MR. deLASKI: I guess I wonder a little bit 13

about sort of the notion of comments. I think we're 14

all going to submit comments in this docket, right. I 15

mean all the people around the table are not going to 16

submit comments to the docket, right. So we're all 17

going to submit comments. There are going to be some 18

commonality among those comments. There's going to be 19

some things where we disagree. 20

I guess I'm wondering whether -- I almost 21

think of it as does it make sense for ASRAC, given our 22

experience particularly in negotiation, which is one 23

of the major topics of the RFI, to provide some 24

response to the Department or some guidance -- provide 25

149


our collective opinion to the Department on how -- on 1

that topic in particular and perhaps -- and that topic 2

happens to touch on all of the other topics just by 3

virtue of -- for example, the sequencing of test 4

methods and standards comes up, it just came up in our 5

prior discussion, and how would we provide that. Do 6

we provide it as -- you know, I don't know whether 7

it's a comment to the docket or whether we have 8

this -- we have this committee, which is created by 9

the Department, to provide guidance to the Department. 10

So, you know, I certainly would want it in the public 11

sphere. This meeting is in the public record. So 12

it's all in the public sphere, but I would think it 13

would be an opportunity for us to provide it so it's 14

separately from our individual organizational 15

comments, if we decide to do that. 16

MR. GATTO: Dave Gatto, Westinghouse. Yeah, 17

I think I agree with that. I'm just not sure of the 18

timing of it because I don't know if what you're 19

proposing is -- because I agree we're all going to, 20

whether directly or through our associations, we're 21

all going to be submitting comments for most of it to 22

that particular docket. So are you proposing or 23

thinking -- and John, I don't know if this is 24

possible, because once the comment period is closed, 25

150


would ASRAC be able to then review the comments, 1

whether they're -- once they're publicly published, 2

because they go right in as soon as you get the date, 3

as soon as people submit them really. I think you do 4

a quick review to make sure there's not anything in 5

there that you can't post. But then the ASRAC 6

committee, and I would agree it would be the committee 7

versus the working group, we could then review that 8

feedback or maybe pick the portions of it that we 9

think are things the committee could comment on where 10

we wouldn't have 19 different positions, and then 11

either give feedback on what we think the process rule 12

change might look like or on the areas that we think 13

DOE would be best served to focus on to improve the 14

process overall. 15

Does that make sense? It's really for me 16

I'm not sure whether this committee is allowed to 17

comment after the comments deadline, if that makes 18

sense. 19

MR. CYMBALSKY: This is John from DOE. But 20

this committee is charged, as Andrew said, to advise 21

the Department on issues relating to appliance 22

standards and obviously this is one of them. So even 23

outside the comment period of the RFI, after the 24

meeting that we have in the springtime, this group at 25

151


that meeting could say, here's advice we're giving to 1

DOE and that will be put up in the docket and on the 2

website and obviously it's public. So, sure, I don't 3

see why that can't be done. 4

MR. deLASKI: That's a lot more appealing as 5

an exercise what you've described. Because I would 6

have been trying -- 7

MR. GATTO: Yeah, and I wasn't sure if 8

that's what you were proposing either because I wasn't 9

-- like I like the idea, but I wasn't sure if that was 10

actually what you were saying. 11

MR. deLASKI: Frankly I hadn't -- 12

necessarily I didn't have a firm proposal out there. 13

But what you've just described to me, I think we ought 14

to be really busy frankly, unless -- I mean, of course 15

you guys can come in the deadline. That would help 16

plod. But given you have a request for that, that 17

Karen from Rheem made yesterday, so you have a formal 18

request from that deadline. But I would suggest that 19

the notion that we, as a committee, could then learn 20

from what's on the public docket and then, you know, 21

use our experience and then what would we draw from 22

that and can we come up with some recommendations for 23

the agency based on both our own experience and also 24

what we've seen on the docket that is reflective of 25

152


the joint opinion of this diverse of the stakeholders. 1

I think that could be very valuable to the 2

Department, you know. Who cares what the Department 3

thinks, but I think it could be some time well spent. 4

You know, we created some working groups that -- not 5

working groups, but subgroup within this committee to 6

tackle some of these issues over the past year. Now 7

is the chance to bring that -- past couple of years -- 8

it's a chance to bring some of that experience to 9

bear. 10

MR. HON: This is Charlie Hon. I think that 11

it's very important because we still are bound by 12

certain rules and regulations for this committee as 13

far as public notices, time lines, different things 14

like that. We have to give certain amount of advance 15

notice of a meeting or anything like that. And I do 16

not see how we could possibly, unless the deadline is 17

extended, really do a good job of solidifying our list 18

of opinions in a timely manner to make this happen. 19

It would be much better served by reviewing what's 20

going on from other comments and try and solidify some 21

position melding several of these comments in. 22

MR. deLASKI: Right, that makes good sense 23

to me. 24

MS. CLEARY: Jenn Cleary with AHAM. I agree 25

153


with what seems to be off the table, which is that we 1

should not try to comment as a group. It's a 2

ridiculously short period of time for us to try to do 3

that. I think as far as the potential for us to give 4

future recommendations, I'd really like to see what 5

ends up on the docket before I commit one way or the 6

other because I think that what we read on the docket 7

will be telling us to whether that's possible or not. 8

And I don't really want to be under like an 9

obligation for us to do that if when we review the 10

docket, it doesn't look like we have any areas of 11

sufficient agreement, for example, to make that time 12

well spent. So for what that's worth. 13

MR. deLASKI: Sofie? 14

MS. MILLER: This is Sofie Miller. I agree 15

with you, Jenn, and I think part of that is because as 16

a newer member, I'm less familiar with what some 17

folks' stances are on different portions of that. And 18

also because coming from a rulemaking best practices 19

perspective, you might end up having very different 20

recommendations than coming from what's an expedient 21

rulemaking to provide certainty to manufacturers. So 22

I anticipate that I might actually not find lots of 23

room for agreement on certain particular areas and I 24

would prefer to see how that pans out before 25

154


committing. But if there are areas of agreement, I 1

would be more than happy to learn more about those and 2

see how we can support each other in that. But I 3

agree with Jenn, I prefer to see -- to wait a bit to 4

see where the chips fall, if that's a saying. 5

MR. deLASKI: Noah? 6

MR. HOROWITZ: So I might have been one of 7

the initial proposers of coming up with comments 8

jointly. I withdraw that. 9

MR. CYMBALSKY: So it sounds like we've 10

heard from a couple of people that today we agree, as 11

a group, to read the docket comments when the comment 12

period ends and then go from there. Is that something 13

-- everyone is shaking their head, yeah. 14

MS. DRISKELL: Can I suggest being a little 15

bit more precise and come back in the spring and talk 16

about, all right, do we have areas of agreement, yes, 17

no, and then proceed from there? Okay, if we do have 18

areas of agreement, what do we want to do with them, 19

what recommendations do we want to make? Or if we 20

don't have areas of agreement, we'll let the 21

Department decide what to do? 22

MR. deLASKI: Yeah, I also would caution 23

that there could be areas of agreement that you 24

wouldn't see in written comments, right, that if 25

155


you're looking for someone's bottom line position in 1

their written comments, you're not necessarily -- you 2

know, that there's a -- we learn things in these 3

discussions that we don't learn or just read written 4

comments and that there may be value in coming back 5

around this table to discuss items, even items where 6

you don't see agreement in the written submittals and 7

that you shouldn't stop there. 8

MR. GATTO: Yeah, Dave Gatto, Westinghouse. 9

I think I understand where we are. The plan would be 10

to add an agenda item for the spring meeting 11

specifically to talk about what everyone learned and 12

look for, if there are, as an opportunity to provide 13

either comments going back to DOE, and I think that's 14

a good idea. I definitely was not -- if it sounded 15

like we should do this. I don't know that I want to 16

pull that back, but we don't know whether we want to 17

do it until we have a sense of what -- whether there 18

is something. 19

And I think I also agree, Andrew, that a 20

conversation here after having everyone having 21

reviewed, there may be some common ground that isn't 22

in the comments but that comes out of that discussion. 23

I think that's been one of the benefits of the 24

negotiated rulemaking process. And even where we 25

156


weren't in an ASRAC process, but in the public meeting 1

space where we would be more collaborative negotiating 2

mode, things come out of that that benefit everyone 3

that we don't get to if we're lobbying comments over, 4

everyone in the very last minute before the comment 5

period closes, so no one else can see and respond to 6

your comments and then waiting 'til they come out. 7

MALE VOICE: Nobody does that. 8

MR. GATTO: Oh, I'm sorry, it's just me 9

apparently. 10

MR. CYMBALSKY: And the only thing I would 11

add, I agree with what everybody's saying, but, you 12

know, for us to be relevant, we also need to be 13

timely, and I think we all realize that. That's 14

probably obvious. But, you know, at the end of the 15

comment period, you know, everyone here has to read 16

the comments, right. Don't, you know, don't wait for 17

the spring meeting to start reading them, because I 18

think -- and I don't know how this process is going to 19

move forward after the comment period ends. I 20

honestly don't know and I don't know the timing, but 21

we want our -- whatever we come up with, we want it to 22

be relevant. So it needs to be timely. That's all 23

I'll say. 24

MS. CLEARY: Jenn Cleary. So I anticipate 25

157


that there are going to be hundreds of comments on 1

this docket and I'm not really prepared to read all of 2

them, but I am happy to read those from the members of 3

the committee and, you know, maybe any others that are 4

particularly relevant to me. But I don't want to like 5

try to take on the Department's job of reviewing and 6

trying to reconcile all of the comments. Otherwise, I 7

would apply to work here, but I don't want to do that. 8

So I just want to be clear about, you know, what 9

we're all like getting into here because I'm not 10

really ready to get into that. 11

MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah. And I think if 12

everyone reads not only everyone on the committee's 13

comments but also those from the industry -- John and 14

I get the pleasure of reading all of them regardless. 15

So perhaps we can fill in the gaps as necessary, if 16

there are any that we need to raise that we don't 17

think are covered by, I think that's okay. 18

MR. WINNINGHAM: This is just a question 19

back to the Department. Would it be possible to 20

create kind of a discussion outline of the summary 21

themes from the comments that you received to kind of 22

foster the discussion of, you know, from this group, 23

here's what we're seeing as the major themes, so to 24

kind of move the discussion forward. And I don't know 25

158


if that's possible or not. 1

MS. ARMSTRONG: So I certainly think we can 2

come up with some type of outline. Now how detailed 3

it is going to depend on obviously the volume of the 4

comments, the diversity of the comments, and honestly 5

when the meeting is as compared to when the comment 6

period closes. 7

MR. WINNINGHAM: Yeah. And I -- 8

MS. ARMSTRONG: If we're talking like 10 9

days and there's hundreds of comments that are 10

hundreds of pages, I don't think it's -- you know, 11

we're not going to be able to give you a detailed 12

comment discussion draft. 13

MR. WINNINGHAM: Yeah. And acknowledging 14

those constraints and -- 15

MS. ARMSTRONG: But something is reasonable. 16

MR. WINNINGHAM: Something to help foster 17

the discussion that's, you know, particularly around 18

the common themes that we're seeing. 19

MS. ARMSTRONG: So I will say that in my 20

opinion, I think this agenda item in and of itself 21

will take a day with all the discussion. So to the 22

two chairs and how you want to handle this and 23

whether -- I don't know what that looks like, if ASRAC 24

wants to have a dedicated meeting to this. I do think 25

159


it will take a while. 1

MS. CLEARY: Ashley, this is Jenn. Do you 2

see value in this? I guess I'm just questioning it a 3

little bit, if what we're doing is reading through 4

comments, identifying areas of agreement, and then 5

making an ASRAC recommendation based on those areas 6

when the Department can do the same thing and 7

presumably would want to try to enact areas -- things 8

where there are areas of agreement. I just want to 9

make sure we're not duplicating. 10

MS. ARMSTRONG: So my personal opinion -- 11

this hasn't been discussed at the larger level within 12

the Department. My personal opinion is that a joint 13

recommendation supported by everyone on ASRAC will 14

carry weight and will be helpful. 15

Now I think as something Dave said is one of 16

the benefits you get to, you guys have a lot of 17

experience, most of you, with our rulemakings and with 18

the negotiated rules and with different aspects, and I 19

think one of the things you might be able to do is 20

talk about some of the comments and maybe things 21

come -- maybe there's some middle ground there that 22

doesn't come through with one comment or another but a 23

common recommendation that could satisfy multiple 24

commenters. Maybe the comments aren't exact, but a 25

160


creative solution. I think that is what the 1

committee -- is what could be beneficial from the 2

committee taking the time to discuss it. As you can 3

tell by the attendance yesterday, as you can tell by 4

the importance that has been placed, what Daniel 5

mentioned this morning, this is a big deal to the 6

Department, as I think it is a big deal to all of you. 7

MS. DRISKELL: Kristen Driskell, California 8

Energy Commission. I also suspect based on the 9

comments we had yesterday that there are going to be 10

recommendations to do more work for more processes, 11

and the one I'm thinking of is like a fast-track 12

process to make a no standards determination of some 13

sort. And if that ends up being some sort of area of 14

commonality, that might be something we want to work 15

on. So I'm guessing that it's not going to be fleshed 16

out in a comment. Not that I'm suggesting that we 17

support that, I'm just suggesting an area that might 18

be for further work. 19

MR. HOROWITZ: I'm hearing a lot of 20

potential interest with a little bit of caution from 21

Jenn and Dave. I think we probably need to focus a 22

little bit after this meeting on process. There's 23

going to be a big stack of stuff and many of us don't 24

have the time or the inclination to read through all 25

161


of them. I think we can today guess what many of the 1

key themes would be, but maybe there will be some new 2

information. And maybe before we get together, the 3

chair and co-chair can figure out a small process, 4

could be appointing three or four people as kind of a 5

mini preparatory group to identify what the six or 6

seven issues and kind of bring a straw person or 7

outline of potential areas of consensus in advance of 8

the meeting. Otherwise, we're going to be talking 9

around the table quite a bit, and one day might not 10

even be enough for that. 11

MS. JAKOBS: So this is Diane. I have 12

worked on a lot of comments. And since the Department 13

started posting them immediately, you know, I start 14

reading them because I was just working on it. It's 15

not like a few months later. And, I mean, the idea is 16

that even though I've been working on it, you read 17

somebody else's comment, it's like, oh, I didn't think 18

about it that way. And just like a negotiated 19

rulemaking is really helpful, to me, being able to 20

look at the other people's comments is kind of almost 21

as good as having a discussion. So I would be happy 22

to read all of them. I probably will read them all no 23

matter what. But anyway, I think there's a lot of 24

value there. 25

162


MR. deLASKI: Any other comments on this? I 1

agree with Diane's point. This is work. I mean, this 2

committee is work. This is our first meeting in a 3

year, so we have a backlog, right. So people know 4

working on this committee isn't just coming to a 5

meeting, you know, once every six months. It's a 6

chunk of work and I think it's a responsibility for us 7

as committee members to how do we improve the program, 8

right. So this is a chance to help improve the 9

program. And if that means, you know, blocking off 10

some time to read some comments and then come together 11

and try to -- you know, I hope we can try to sort 12

through not just the things where there's obvious 13

agreement but where there are some things where 14

there's not agreement and can we through discussion 15

get to a consensus among more stakeholders so that the 16

agency can move forward to address the obligations and 17

the goals of the Administration. So I think we can do 18

that, you know, but it's going to be work. 19

MR. WINNINGHAM: To that end, Andrew, I do 20

think there's value here. I think there's significant 21

value and I think it's meaningful for us to take the 22

opportunity to put the effort forward. And I think it 23

is probably just as, maybe even more relevant, to 24

understand the areas of major objection and 25

163


controversy and understand why and understand what are 1

the potential opportunities to prevent that from 2

happening in the future. The commonalities are 3

probably the things that are the easy things. The 4

areas of conflict are probably the meteor ones on how 5

do we either resolve it or provide suggestions to try 6

to help prevent that going forward. 7

You know, there was a variety of discussion 8

yesterday and I thought there was a fair degree of 9

commonality on certain themes from a pretty diverse 10

set of stakeholders. But there are certain areas 11

where there were some very entrenched feelings and 12

opinions around certain things. I don't think we need 13

to go into that. But through our experiences, you 14

know, I think we, as Diane alluded to, we've all kind 15

of been educated through this process as to kind of 16

what works and maybe what doesn't work and how can we 17

lend those experiences and make, you know, meaningful 18

change into the process. How do we get to a yes or a 19

successful rule that doesn't end up in litigation and 20

helps move the ball towards, you know, the goals of 21

the Department and the nation as a whole? 22

MR. deLASKI: And then just to follow onto 23

that, I think what we learned I think through the 24

negotiations that we've had and through the work ASRAC 25

164


has done is that things that we work out through this 1

kind of discussion tend to stick, right, as opposed to 2

things that are contentious and then they don't stick, 3

right, either because of litigation or either because 4

it gets pulled back by some future decision-maker, 5

right. So, if you want to have a robust process that 6

persists over time, just throwing it over the transom 7

and seeing what comes back doesn't usually, doesn't 8

always stick, right. So, if you work through things 9

and understand different opinions and different points 10

of view, you will more likely come out with an outcome 11

that sticks. So that, to me, is the value -- back to 12

the value add question, that, to me, is the value add, 13

coming up with something that would stick over time. 14

So I think there's a lot of benefit and I 15

think that's part of why the committee was created in 16

the first place. And we've done it successfully now 17

for a dozen working groups or so and, you know, this 18

is a chance now for more of a crosscutting role for 19

us. So I think the action item is simply to schedule 20

a next meeting to allow -- that will be long enough to 21

be able to give us at least the possibility of having 22

a more in-depth discussion, even though some folks 23

here aren't necessarily committed -- aren't ready to 24

commit to that in-depth discussion. So at least we 25

165


have that open and we have a meeting scheduled. 1

MS. ARMSTRONG: But to John's point, not too 2

far off in the future to make our stance -- 3

MR. deLASKI: Right. Can we pull out 4

calendars? Should we try to schedule a meeting? 5


MR. CYMBALSKY: I might take away my April 7

suggestion and say March, honestly, based on, you 8

know, based on, you know, what we've decided to tackle 9

here and again to be relevant and timely. So the 10

current comment period ends in February. And then if 11

it gets extended, it would be -- 12

MS. ARMSTRONG: Mid march. 13

MR. CYMBALSKY: -- mid March. 14

MS. DRISKELL: February 16th now. So, if it 15

went back to the original 90 days, it would be 16

March 15 or so. February has only got 28 days, but 17

something like that. 18

MR. CYMBALSKY: I mean, who is up for seeing 19

Cherry Blossoms in D.C. in late March, early April is 20

what I'm hearing, but I don't know. Does that sound 21

right to you, late March? 22

MS. ARMSTRONG: I think the first week in 23

April is ideal maybe. 24

MR. CYMBALSKY: Okay. 25

166


MALE VOICE: The last week in March or the 1

first week of April. 2

MS. ARMSTRONG: So the first week in April 3

might be a little better, especially towards the end 4

of the week. I know Fridays are not great. 5

MS. MILLER: Beginning of April would be 6

preferable. I've got I think three academic 7

conferences in March, two of which involve travel. 8

MS. ARMSTRONG: How about February the 4th 9

or February 5th. One is a -- 10

MR. CYMBALSKY: April. 11

MS. ARMSTRONG: I'm sorry, you know, I 12

really want to see you guys so soon. I'm so excited. 13

April 4th or 5th. 14

MALE VOICE: I think we're probably going to 15

be meeting, if we're going to have a full meeting, 16

we're going to need one day or two. 17

MR. deLASKI: What did you say, Kristen? 18

MS. DRISKELL: I'm going to be down the 19

river in Utah -- 20

MR. deLASKI: You'll be down the river? 21

MS. DRISKELL: -- the first week in April. 22

MR. deLASKI: With a paddle, I hope. 23

MS. DRISKELL: Hopefully, I'll have a 24

paddle. 25

167


MR. CYMBALSKY: Better than being up the 1

river. 2

MS. ARMSTRONG: Well, can you modify that, 3

please? 4

MR. deLASKI: So the last week of March was 5

a conflict for some folks, is that what I heard? 6

That's no good? 7

MS. MILLER: I think I might be able to do 8

last week of March. I'm trying to double check some 9

of the conference dates. 10

MR. deLASKI: I hear a negative over here. 11

MR. HON: The last week of March is fine. 12

Two weeks before that, I'm out of the country. 13

MR. deLASKI: Ashley, you're -- 14

MS. ARMSTRONG: I'm out. 15

MS. DRISKELL: You're out. We need you. 16

MS. ARMSTRONG: Kids' spring break. 17

MR. CYMBALSKY: Don't look at me. 18

MS. ARMSTRONG: Yeah, you're in. 19

MR. CYMBALSKY: This is why we don't have 30 20

people on the committee, just so that you know. It's 21

hard enough getting 12 people to agree. 22

MR. deLASKI: Well, what about the next -- 23

what about the week of April 9th? 24

MR. CYMBALSKY: April 9th is a very special 25

168


day to me. 1

MR. deLASKI: Your birthday? 2

MR. CYMBALSKY: It's my birthday, bring 3

presents. 4

MS. ARMSTRONG: So we could do like a 9th 5

and 10th with a 9th evening out. 6

MR. CYMBALSKY: I'm okay. I will sit in 7

this room on my 51st birthday. 8

MALE VOICE: Explain the $25 rule. 9

MS. ARMSTRONG: We can go off the record. 10

MR. CYMBALSKY: A slice of cake I hope does 11

not cost $25. 12

MR. deLASKI: All right. So maybe -- that's 13

a Monday. We're not going to do the whole Monday, 14

right? That's bad for the people who have to travel 15

in. 16

MALE VOICE: That's okay for me. But 17

anybody that's got to go on the plan, like Christmas, 18

it's going to be Sunday. 19

MR. deLASKI: Yeah. 20

FEMALE VOICE: April 10th? 21

MR. deLASKI: The 10th of April? 22

FEMALE VOICE: The 10th of April is good, 23

works for me. 24

MR. CYMBALSKY: I might be a little tired 25

169


that day, but I'll come in. 1

(Laughter.) 2

MS. ARMSTRONG: Sounds good. 3


MS. ARMSTRONG: Starting at 9? 5

MR. CYMBALSKY: Yeah. I think we'll make 6

this a 9 to 5 and we're going to need the full day. 7

MR. deLASKI: Fly in the night before, piece 8

of advice from somebody who -- 9

MR. CYMBALSKY: Got stuck. 10

MR. deLASKI: -- got stuck the last time. 11

Okay. I think we're done with the 12

committee's agenda, other than the important item of 13

the last, which is opening up to members of the public 14

for comment or -- oh, Jenn? 15

MS. CLEARY: This is Jenn. I did have one 16

additional agenda item, which is portable air 17

conditioners. Just, you know, it wasn't anything that 18

was negotiated by this group, but AHAM would really 19

like to see that rule, which was issued but not 20

published, be published. I think there are others who 21

maybe want to speak up on this as well. And I don't 22

know if it's possible to get an ASRAC recommendation 23

for that publication and/or for us to consider as part 24

of, you know, what we talked about earlier today, 25

170


identifying, you know, what the Department's 1

roadblocks are. I'm assuming it's two for one order. 2

Are there ways that ASRAC can help to identify things 3

that could be offsets for that rule to allow it to be 4

published. 5

You know, just for those who aren't 6

involved, which I think is just about everyone else at 7

the table, this is one of the rules that toward the 8

end of the last Administration was issued and had to 9

go through the error correction rule process and then 10

could not be published. So right now we have the 11

status where we know what the Department's decision 12

was on the rule, but it's not yet effective. We have 13

a final test procedure for this product. It's the 14

first time it's been regulated. We have interest 15

from, you know, Canada, from states starting to crop 16

up. So really in the interest of national, you know, 17

and U.S. standards coming first, et cetera, 18

coordination with Canada is really critical for 19

certainty for manufacturers as well to get this 20

published and an effective date known. So this is an 21

important priority for AHAM. 22

MR. deLASKI: Charlie, you want to comment? 23

MR. HON: One quick, when backtracking and 24

one thing we didn't do is we've approved a working 25

171


group, but we didn't approve a member from ASRAC to be 1

the coordinator for that working group, communicating 2

back into the group. 3

MR. CYMBALSKY: That's true. I thought I 4

heard you volunteer. I guess that wasn't the 5

official -- I know who the DOE person is going to be. 6

MR. HON: Yes, but I don't guarantee that I 7

could be that active on that group because it is not a 8

product which we manufacture. 9

MR. deLASKI: So I hear Charlie was not -- 10

he thought he was being -- we thought he was 11

volunteered and he's telling me that he wasn't 12

volunteered. 13

MR. CYMBALSKY: Yes. 14

MR. deLASKI: Diane? 15

MS. JAKOBS: I would volunteer because of 16

the work at AHRI, I am familiar with this -- 17


MS. JAKOBS: -- with both those products. 19


MR. CYMBALSKY: Anybody else? 21

MR. WINNINGHAM: Everyone can do it. We're 22

in the second month. But, again, you know -- 23

MR. deLASKI: Dave and Diane. I mean, you 24

guys don't -- I think we can have you both for the 25

172


moment and then, when the working group is formed, we 1

can probably figure out who has the bandwidth to do 2

it. Anyone from the non-manufacturing community 3

interested in participating in this working group 4

potentially? 5

MS. DRISKELL: I mean, the Energy Commission 6

will probably participate. I just don't think it will 7

be me, if possible. 8


MS. ARMSTRONG: It will just be separate. 10

MS. DRISKELL: Yeah, it will be a separate 11

application through the normal process. 12

MR. deLASKI: Right. Any member from this 13

committee can have a person from their organization or 14

separately apply for the working group. Okay, all 15

right. So the working group representative is -- for 16

the moment, we have two and in the end it may be one 17

of the two. 18

MS. JAKOBS: And the other one would back up 19

whenever? 20

MR. deLASKI: Yeah. Okay, great. Thank you 21

for, Charlie, for getting us on track on that. 22

On the issue of portable AC, we've supported 23

that standard since it was -- you know, throughout the 24

process and appreciate AHAM's hard work to get it in 25

173


place and the agency's hard work to complete it. And 1

it's a solid standard. It's wildly cost-effective for 2

the consumers of the product. And it's one that was 3

developed through an open public rulemaking process 4

over multiple years that had full participation of 5

stakeholders. 6

It's been a point of frustration that it 7

hasn't been completed. It's got -- it's basically a 8

consensus rule. It wasn't developed through the 9

negotiation process. But a lot of the rules that were 10

negotiated -- developed through the vendor rulemaking 11

process are not controversial. You know, this one 12

doesn't have to be negotiated. It's already been 13

done. You don't have to create a working group. It's 14

done, just publish it, right. So, you know, I guess 15

we can't -- it's a difficult situation, but it strikes 16

me that it would be very -- it would be a good thing 17

for the Department to publish it. Kristen, do you 18

want to comment? 19

MS. DRISKELL: Two things. One, Jenn's 20

right, that states are starting to take interest in 21

this. The Energy Commission just released a notice of 22

proposed order instituting rulemaking that includes 23

portable air conditioners. The second thing I wanted 24

to ask is would it be helpful if the ASRAC made a 25

174


formal recommendation to DOE to publish this rule or 1

sent a letter or something along those lines if we 2

agree that we want this to happen? 3

MR. CYMBALSKY: I don't think it would hurt. 4

So, I mean, I think ASRAC, as I recall a couple years 5

back, there were some things with OIRA where ASRAC as 6

a group were trying to make recommendations on certain 7

things. I see this as the same as that. 8

MR. deLASKI: I guess I would ask -- I mean, 9

a number of us were very involved or our organizations 10

were very involved in that rulemaking. I wonder 11

whether there are folks on the committee who weren't 12

so involved who may have questions or concerns. 13

MR. WINNINGHAM: Just, Jenn, could you kind 14

of walk through the process of the participants and 15

the timeframe and the outcome, just high level, just 16

would like to understand better, just from 17

unfamiliarity. 18

MS. CLEARY: Sure. This is Jenn. It was 19

normal notice and comment rulemaking, so I know that 20

AHAM and some of our individual members participated. 21

I know that members of the advocacy community 22

participated. So, as Andrew said, I think there was 23

full participation in the rule. AHAM provided a great 24

deal of data as part of the rulemaking effort. I'm 25

175


not going to say that the rulemaking process was 1

without issues, test procedures -- the test procedure 2

wasn't completed before the standard was started. 3

Nevertheless, we don't oppose the outcome of the 4

standard that has been issued but not yet published by 5

DOE, and I'm not aware of anyone that does oppose it. 6

MR. WINNINGHAM: So it was done through 7

normal -- the normal process, but you mentioned it was 8

somewhat of a consensus of the stakeholders? 9

MS. CLEARY: Not to put words in Andrew's 10

mouth, but I think what he meant is that there wasn't 11

a -- it wasn't an overly controversial rulemaking. 12

MR. WINNINGHAM: Okay. 13

MR. deLASKI: Yeah. I shouldn't use the 14

word -- it was not a consensus proposal. There's no 15

objection to the rule. No one's objecting -- no one 16

has objected to the rule as it was finalized to any of 17

our knowledge of those of us who track it closely. 18

MR. HOROWITZ: It would seem to me that it 19

could be helpful, and I don't see a downside unless 20

there's some procedural restriction to have a 21

resolution or letter supporting the publication of 22

this final rule by this group. 23

MR. CYMBALSKY: Just from DOE's point of 24

view, these are -- this rule is subject to litigation 25

176


right now. So we -- you know, obviously, DOE won't be 1

a part of whatever ASRAC may want to decide to do. 2

MR. HOROWITZ: And some of us might be part 3

of the litigation, so we just need to check if it's 4

okay to be on the letter. 5

MR. CYMBALSKY: We don't hold that -- as you 6

heard yesterday, we don't hold that against anybody. 7

MR. deLASKI: Maybe we need to make this a 8

little more simple, maybe just a sense of the group, 9

you know, just is there a sense of the group? I don't 10

know that we need to do a letter. What do you think? 11

What would be your -- 12

MS. CLEARY: I think a sense of the group 13

would be helpful. I think if it was something more 14

formal, that would probably carry a little more 15

weight. I'm glad John raised that we've gone to OMB 16

in the past together before. So, if there were people 17

willing to go together to OMB to try to impress upon 18

them the importance of publishing this rule as well, 19

to the extent that the holdup may be there, that would 20

also have some value, and I'd be glad to organize that 21

effort. 22

MR. GATTO: So, Jenn, I don't -- I wouldn't 23

have any objection to going to OMB. But I guess, and 24

this may be because no one who is involved in the 25

177


litigation can talk about it, but is anyone able to 1

say whether or not the litigation is why it's not 2

coming out of OMB? Because then there's no -- I don't 3

want to say there's no point, but there's -- you know, 4

if the reason it's not coming out of OMB is that 5

they're waiting for a determination, then it's always 6

nice, Cherry blossoms or not, to come down here, John. 7

I just don't know that it's worth the trip. 8

MS. CLEARY: This is Jenn. I'm not a party 9

to the litigation, but the litigation is because it 10

hasn't been published. So it's not about the 11

substance of the rule and it's packaged together with 12

other rules that were in the same status of issue, but 13

not yet published. 14

MS. JAKOBS: What were the products? 15

MS. CLEARY: This is Jenn. Portable air 16

conditioners. 17

MALE VOICE: I know it's not the normal 18

procedure, but somebody wants to weigh in and I'm not 19

sure if that's appropriate. 20

MS. DAVIDSON-HOOD: I just have a fact that 21

-- this is Caroline Davidson-Hood from AHRI, but there 22

was also another rule that was subject to this 23

litigation that did eventually get published. 24

MR. deLASKI: Right. 25

178


MS. DAVIDSON-HOOD: Just for the record. 1

MR. deLASKI: No, that's a very good point. 2

Thank you for raising that. You know, the walk-ins 3

were part of the same litigation and the walk-in rule 4

was published. 5

MR. HON: Are there others in the same 6

litigation? 7

MR. deLASKI: Yeah. There's five or four. 8

There were five. Now there's four. 9

MR. HON: Okay. 10

MR. deLASKI: So the Department can 11

basically -- basically, this is the least -- this is 12

the one amongst the four where just clearly there's no 13

one who has raised objections to publishing this rule. 14

And what I'm hearing is -- I guess what I would 15

suggest is let's -- is there a sense of the group to 16

urge the Department to go ahead and finalize this one, 17

given the level of -- given that it is a consensus 18

rule that, you know, doesn't need to be negotiated? 19

MR. WINNINGHAM: First, thank you, Caroline, 20

for that piece of information and the one rule that 21

was pushed through and I guess I wasn't connecting the 22

dots. I mean, there was some effort to try to 23

encourage the Department to move that forward. So I 24

guess I would be supportive of that. 25

179


MS. MILLER: This is Sofie. I'm not sure if 1

I'd be comfortable doing that only because I don't 2

recall if I've looked deeply into that rule or not. 3

And generally -- at George Washington University, we 4

generally don't sign on to letters. If it were a 5

comment letter, that might be slightly different, but 6

typically not coalitions and things like that. So 7

that might not be within my portfolio, but I don't 8

know that that would prohibit anyone else from 9

grouping together and making the same kinds of 10

recommendations. 11

MR. deLASKI: Does anyone else have a 12

concern? 13

MS. JAKOBS: Not a concern, but I think one 14

of the key issue though is that when this group of 15

people comes together and negotiates and comes to a 16

conclusion, that it goes somewhere because it's -- the 17

expense is a lot of time and people make a big 18

commitment. So the fact that everything worked out 19

and you have an agreement and it's like stopped 20

somehow, I think that's a problem for us regardless of 21

the -- 22

MS. CLEARY: Jenn, this is Jenn. Diane, 23

just to be clear, this wasn't negotiated. This was 24

done through formal notice and comment rulemaking and 25

180


it's just that we, as an industry, and I think 1

everyone is just kind of like okay with it. I'm not 2

going to say if we're happy or jumping over the fences 3

about it, but we're okay with it and we'd like to see 4

it published. I think from, you know, a policy 5

perspective for this committee though, having a rule 6

that the Department has issued and not published is 7

not a good policy. So that's why I brought it before 8

this group, you know, not necessarily on the substance 9

of the rule, but this is sitting out there and I 10

think, you know, all the things we talked about today, 11

avoiding patchwork of state standards, et cetera, you 12

know, are advanced by having this rule published. 13

MR. deLASKI: Just a reminder that you can 14

get through -- I think in a case of most negotiated 15

standards, you're usually in a -- at the end of the 16

day, you're like, I can live with this standard. 17

Again, even in that case, you're not jumping over the 18

moon usually. You're just like, this is something I 19

can live with. So you got to that outcome through the 20

normal notice and comment process. But it's equally, 21

an equally supportive, you know, kind of thing, 22

outcome that has big benefits that work for -- has 23

always been, as Jenn just described, and should be 24

completed. So I think what I'm hearing is a consensus 25

181


agreement, with Sofie's caveat that she just provided, 1

that the Department -- we're urging the Department to 2

publish that rule. 3

And I guess I would leave it to you, Jenn, 4

that if you'd like to organize a meeting for OIRA, 5

that I certainly would be willing to participate in 6

that and I see a couple of other noddings from the 7

table of others who would be willing to participate as 8

well. I don't think we need to have a -- I think we 9

did that before for some product, I forget what it 10

was, and we had a delegation of two essentially. 11

MS. CLEARY: I think it was you and I, 12

Andrew. 13

MR. deLASKI: I guess. 14

MS. CLEARY: So thank you all for your time. 15

I appreciate it. 16

MS. ARMSTRONG: So I will just suggest if 17

you end up deciding to go to OIRA to meet, there are 18

some new faces at OIRA, so I think it could be 19

beneficial for them to get introduced into this is 20

what ASRAC is, this is what ASRAC does, this is who we 21

are, this is what we're trying to accomplish from 22

someone other -- explaining it other than people from 23

the Department and this is why it's important. And 24

whatever else you want to add. 25

182


MR. HON: Depending on schedule, I may be 1

available too. 2

MR. deLASKI: So we're look to you to 3

coordinate that and schedule it. 4

MS. CLEARY: Okay. 5

MR. HOROWITZ: Jenn, someone from NRDC, if 6

you want to reach out to me, will get you the right 7

person. 8

MS. CLEARY: Great, thank you. 9

MR. deLASKI: Okay. Is there anything else 10

from the committee before we open for comments and 11

questions from the public? 12

(Pause.) 13

MR. deLASKI: All right. Thanks for your 14

patience, those in the audience. Steve? 15

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Thank you. Just a quick 16

one and this is -- I've been on a couple of negotiated 17

and neg reg working groups and I just wanted to ask, 18

as you go forward with this first one, assuming it 19

goes forward for the VRF air conditioners and heat 20

pumps, I heard the timing of six months. I know I was 21

on one that worked for about a year, I'll say. You 22

know, again it was transformers because it was a lot 23

of -- it might be more product classes, for example, 24

but a couple of thoughts. In the solicitation, is 25

183


there going to be -- I'll just say for those who are 1

interested, you need to know that you have to be at so 2

many in-person -- you're expected to be at so many in-3

person meetings per month or so many webinars per 4

month. Again, just to -- and all the meetings will be 5

in Washington, D.C. Again, I'm just thinking about 6

logistics for potential participants, that they need 7

to know for this particular negotiation, over the six-8

month period, they're going to have to allocate time 9

and resources and possible travel expense. Again, I 10

just to give an idea of this is the basic commitment. 11

Again, I can't remember if it was done in previous 12

solicitations, but since I've heard the timeframe, is 13

there a way to say that in the solicitation that this 14

is what you're expected to do just for your logistic 15

time and resources basically, time and resource 16

management. That's one thought. 17

The second thought is again -- 18

MS. ARMSTRONG: Well, before second -- the 19

answer is yes. 20

MR. ROSENSTOCK: What? 21

MS. ARMSTRONG: The answer is yes. 22

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Okay. The second is, is 23

there thoughts about possibly adjusting the in-person 24

versus webinar type of meetings going forward again in 25

184


terms of cost and resource management? I know in-1

person is very invaluable, but I have been -- I do a 2

lot of ASHRAE work. We do have ASHRAE meetings with 3

sometimes 70 people on a webinar and they can make it. 4

It can be made to work. So, again, again, I'm just 5

thinking about people's resources and time commitment 6

that if there's a higher percentage of webinars versus 7

in-person, I know you don't get the face-to-face, but, 8

again, it might help in terms of possible 9

participation. Again, I'm just throwing these things 10

out in terms of could changes be made in terms for the 11

working groups to make it easier for participation? 12

And the third one is, I think we did -- I 13

think it was done before, but will you allow, I'll 14

say, organizational alternates, that if the primary 15

can't do it, the secondary is required to attend and 16

required to be up to speed where no one has to explain 17

anything to him or her? Again, speaking from my 18

ASHRAE experience, I have an organizational 19

alternative where I'm doing a lot of different things, 20

we all do a lot of different things, that it does 21

allow some flexibility for participation. 22

MS. ARMSTRONG: The answer to the last one 23

is yes for the alternates. 24

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Okay. 25

185


MS. ARMSTRONG: The answer to the middle one 1

is in the past, the Department has provided both 2

webinars and in-person meetings and it's been up to 3

the participant to decide. And sometimes the working 4

group has decided to have webinars during. Really the 5

logistics of where, exactly when and how are decided 6

at that first working group meeting. But certainly 7

we'll continue to provide both a room, a mediator, and 8

a webinar availability for all the meetings. 9

MR. ROSENSTOCK: Thank you. I didn't know, 10

again, if there was any changes down the pike or if 11

there are any new rules that working group 12

participants might be -- need to be aware of. Thank 13

you very much. 14

MR. deLASKI: Bejit? 15

MR. KINDU: Bejit Kindu with Energy 16

Solutions on behalf of PG&E. Just two comments for 17

the record. We are glad to hear that DOE is 18

contemplating the term sheet on circulator pumps and 19

we would encourage direct final rule as soon as 20

possible since PG&E and the California IOUs were a 21

part of that working group. We hope that's finalized. 22

And the second comment I have is on the VRF 23

test procedure. We have some concerns about the 24

representation of actual energy use from that test 25

186


procedure. So we hope that whatever working group is 1

formalized has an opportunity to make tweaks or make 2

some modifications as needed before a standards 3

negotiation moves forward. 4

MR. deLASKI: Okay. Anyone else from this 5

side? 6

MS. ARMSTRONG: Can you state your name? 7

MR. TRUSKOSKI: Eric Truskoski, Bradford 8

White. So recognizing something you guys had said 9

when creating, whether it be industry, test 10

procedures, or associations, organizations, ASHRAE, so 11

forth, that create test procedures, there's concerns 12

from the Department that they may not encompass 13

everything that you guys feel needs to be included. 14

So I guess my question is, is there some sort of 15

template or list of requirements that you could give 16

to these organizations or associations, so that we 17

could -- as we're working through it, we can try and 18

take care of those concerns up front? Not to say we 19

want to exclude your participation, just can we help 20

there? 21

MS. ARMSTRONG: Should I take that 22

personally, Eric? 23

MR. TRUSKOSKI: No. 24

MS. ARMSTRONG: So I think two things that 25

187


have started to happen as we march on. I think one is 1

for those -- I mean the statutory requirements for a 2

test procedure for the Department are the statutory 3

requirements. We've got to read them. They are 4

there. 5

That being said, I think we have some ask 6

and there are more technical and product specific ask. 7

Whether they be -- stem from questions we've gotten 8

from interested parties, testing we've done where we 9

found issues, or other things where we just have 10

concerns. We started giving a list of those sometimes 11

to test procedure committees when they start their 12

work and/or put someone on that committee that 13

represents the Department's interest. We also 14

actively have submitted comments to all of the ASHRI 15

ones that have come out lately and some of the other 16

ones we've provided some more detailed feedback. So 17

that is our plan going forward. 18

MR. TRUSKOSKI: Okay. 19

MS. ARMSTRONG: So I think that it should be 20

pretty obvious to the committees, at least some of our 21

thoughts or open issues. Some of them, we don't have 22

solutions to or opinions on, but we know there's an 23

issue. So we're just simply asking the committee to 24

look into them. 25

188


MR. TRUSKOSKI: Okay, thank you. 1

MR. deLASKI: Anybody else? 2

MS. ARMSTRONG: Is there anyone on the 3

webinar? Peter? 4

MR. GAYDON: Hello? Can you hear me? 5


MR. GAYDON: I wanted to make a public 7

comment about the open term sheets that, you know, 8

were approved by ASRAC and are outstanding. Is the 9

ASRAC committee doing anything to move these along or 10

can they report back to the working groups relative to 11

where DOE stands on these term sheets and moving 12

forward with them? 13

MR. deLASKI: This is Andrew deLaski. Is 14

there a particular -- so there was some discussion on 15

the various term sheets today. Is there a particular 16

term sheet that you wanted to ask about and you want 17

to identify your affiliation? 18

MR. GAYDON: Yeah. Peter Gaydon with the 19

Hydraulic Institute. 20


MR. GAYDON: I was a member of the 22

circulator pump working group. We haven't received 23

any information as far as if DOE is moving forward 24

with those. It was approved by the ASRAC. So we're 25

189


just looking for any information as to schedule. Are 1

we waiting until after the process rule? Any 2

information back to the working group would be 3

helpful. ASRAC approved it and we expected some 4

motion this year. 5

MR. deLASKI: Right. So thank you, Peter, 6

for your comment. So for everyone else's benefit, the 7

Hydraulic Institute is the trade association that 8

represent the pump manufacturers. They are part of 9

the negotiation. They support publication of the 10

rule. And it came up earlier and the report back was 11

that there was no news from the agency. And ASRAC, 12

we've requested for -- our request is outstanding, 13

which is we're looking for an update from the 14

committee -- from the agency. And at this point, they 15

weren't able to provide us any information. So it is 16

outstanding business that we're -- as ASRAC is keen to 17

see the agency move on, given that we approved it 18

previously. 19

MR. GAYDON: Thank you for that update. 20

MR. deLASKI: Anyone else from the webinar? 21

(No additional questions.) 22

MS. ARMSTRONG: So I just want to circle 23

back to one thing and I think you asked me something 24

about an outstanding term sheet item on a label, 25

190


perhaps pumps. Did I get that right? The label is in 1

the regs. We adopted it as part of the previous 2

rulemaking. So that has been satisfied. 3

MR. deLASKI: Cross that one off. 4

MR. CYMBALSKY: Good way to end the meeting. 5

MR. deLASKI: Thank you. A very product 6

meeting and we'll see everybody in early April. Bye-7

bye. 8

(Whereupon, at 3:25 p.m., the meeting in the 9

above-entitled matter adjourned.) 10

// 11

// 12

// 13

// 14

// 15

// 16

// 17

// 18

// 19

// 20

// 21

// 22

// 23

// 24

// 25

191


REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE

DOCKET NO.: N/A

CASE TITLE: Appliance Standards and Rulemaking

Federal Advisory Committee (ASRAC), Full

Parent Committee Meeting & Webinar

DATE: January 10, 2018

LOCATION: Washington, D.C.

I hereby certify that the proceedings and

evidence are contained fully and accurately on the

tapes and notes reported by me at the hearing in the

above case before the U.S. Department of Energy,

Office of Energy Efficiency & Renewable Energy.

Date: January 10, 2018

David Jones Official Reporter Heritage Reporting Corporation Suite 206 1220 L Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005-4018

transcript of proceedings - us department of … · transcript of proceedings ... 10 doe intends to...

Documents